Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COTTON INDUSTRY WAR MEMORIAL TRUST BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

FELIXSTOWE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER BILL

Read a Second time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL

Read a Second time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL

Read a Second time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY

Displaced Persons' Camps

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent murder at Poggio Reale, near Naples, of two representatives of the Yugoslav Government visiting a Chetnik camp and the violence offered to Polish official representatives visiting a camp of Polish displaced persons eight months ago, also under British administration, he will now accede to the repeated requests of the Polish and Yugoslav Governments to allow a thorough international investigation of displaced persons' camps in Italy, to make sure that they are not harbouring men wanted on war crime charges.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): No, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: Could my right hon. Friend say, firstly, whether any alternative method of inquiry is on foot; and, secondly, whether he will consider putting under guard as prisoners of war all those individuals and units who fought on the side of the Germans; and if he will deliver up the camp commandant, General Miodrag Damjanovich who has been asked for since December, 1945, as a war criminal because of his having served under the Quisling Serb Premier, Milan Nedich?

Mr. McNeil: I was anxious not to be drawn into any detailed discussion on this question, because there is a committee of inquiry and because it has not been established that anyone has been murdered. Only one man has died, though, of course, His Majesty's Government deeply regret the circumstances of his death. In reply to the first alternative, we are constantly considering what might be done in regard to General Damjanovich, and we are obviously pursuing this matter Secondly, the question of the Yugoslavs who fought with the Germans is being persistently considered. As to alternative methods, we have asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean) to proceed as the head of a screening commission which is investigating these allied matters, but I must make it plain that it has not been established that war criminals are associated with those happenings to which the Question refers.

Religious Freedom

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the insertion in the Peace Treaty with Italy of the Lateran Pacts of 1929 regulating relations between Church and State, jeopardises freedom of religion in that country, and in its effect, will conflict with other articles of the constitution asserting such freedom, he will seek to secure complete religious freedom for the people of Italy in accordance with the terms of the treaty.

Mr. McNeil: There is no reference to the Lateran Pacts in the Italian Peace Treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British

representative on the commission now engaged in drawing up an international bill of human rights will press for the inclusion in this document of specific provisions for the abolition of any political, social or economic disability based on racial discrimination.

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend may be assured that the United Kingdom representative on the Commission will not fail to advance by the most appropriate methods, the declared purpose of the United Nations; that is the promotion of human rights without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

Mr. Driberg: If such provisions are included in this document, could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, so far as we are concerned, they will be as specific and as definite as possible, so that the document will not become a dead letter —like, for instance, in this respect, the American Constitution?

Mr. McNeil: The American Constitution is a matter for another Government. If the United Nations adopts such bill, then His Majesty's Government will take care, as far as that is necessary— and I suggest that it is not very necessary— to see that within our affairs it is not a dead letter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (MME. MARIE MARYNOWSKA, ARREST)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason Mme. Marie Marynowska, employed at the British Embassy in Warsaw, was arrested; whether she has been allowed to communicate freely with His Majesty's Ambassador; and what steps His Majesty's Ambassador has taken to procure her release.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Ambassador addressed a Note, to the Polish authorities on 30th January asking the reasons for Mrs. Marynowska's arrest, whether she would be allowed to obtain legal aid, and whether a member of his staff might visit her. Oral approaches also on the same subject have since been made. No reply has, however, yet been received.

Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lady never took any part whatever in politics? She was simply an interpreter on account of


her knowledge of English, as she was before the war when she was an interpreter to the American Embassy?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Are His Majesty's Government going to sit down under this insult?

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have attempted to see and will persist in seeing that this lady receives every aid to which she is entitled.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R.

Annexations

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have ever approved of the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the U.S.S.R.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government recognise that the Baltic States have de facto been absorbed into the Soviet Union but have not recognised this de jure.

Professor Savory: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this annexation of three independent States is a flagrant violation of clause 2 of the Atlantic Charter, in accordance with which no territory may be transferred without the free will and consent of the inhabitants concerned?

Mr. M. Philips Price: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that before 1918 these countries were part of Russia for nearly 200 years?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is the Minister aware of the immense contribution which this country made to the liberty of these three Republics in days gone by and the number of institutions started there by the munificent help of this country, and is anything being done to preserve the condition of these institutions?

Mr. McNeil: The answer to all three parts of the question is, "Yes, Sir."

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have approved the incorporation of Sub-Carpathian Ukraine in the U.S.S.R.; and, if not, whether any action has been taken in the matter.

Mr. McNeil: The transfer was effected under a treaty between Czechoslovakia

and the Soviet Union and does not call either for approval or disapproval on the part of His Majesty's Government. No action has been taken in the matter nor is it proposed to take any.

Professor Savory: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this annexation is inconsistent with the Anglo-Soviet Agreement in accordance with which Russia renounced all territorial aggrandisement?

Hon. Members: Answer

Arms Standardisation

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider discussing standardisation of military equipment in Moscow next March, with a view to concluding an arrangement with U.S.S.R., where this is technically possible, similar to the Anglo-U.S.A. agreement.

Mr. McNeil: I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 18th November during the Debate on the Address.

Mr. Price: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some disquiet has been caused in Russia by this Anglo-American Agreement, and might not some such suggestion as is incorporated in the Question go some way towards allaying it?

Mr. Eden: Is it not a fact that, if we understand it aright, the position is that while we should widely welcome Soviet cooperation on these lines and can invite it, only the Soviet Government can give it?

Mr. McNeil: My attention has been drawn to the disquiet, but as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has indicated, the Prime Minister has already made a statement on the subject.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is it not a fact that owing to the very large sifts of arms and warlike stores by this country and the United States a very considerable degree of standardisation of armaments exists already?

Mr. Warbey: Is it not the case that no proposals for bilateral military co-operation with the Soviet Union similar to that proposed with the United States have been made by His Majesty's Government?

Oral Answers to Questions —  GREECE (DEPORTATIONS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the deportations of Greek women, children and old people on the orders of security committees; and, in view of the danger of civil disturbances resulting from these deportations and the consequent risk to our troops still in Greece, if he will instruct the ambassador to report on the procedure followed by these security committees, particularly as to whether legal defence is permitted and if the hearings are in public and to press for the fullest legal safeguards.

Mr. McNeil: I am informed that these hearings are not in public and while legal defence is not customary at the Committee of first instance, at the Committee of second instance to which people recommended for deportation may appeal, legal aid may be permitted. His Majesty's Government had already made strong representations to M. Tsaldaris on the subject of deportations. We therefore noted with satisfaction that M. Maximos and his re-formed Government in their declaration of policy promised that the deportation of women and children would be discontinued and sentences of exile would in general be reviewed.

Mr. Piratin: Whilst I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the latter part of that reply and express my pleasure at the promise of review, may I ask him whether he is aware that the women and children who have been deported to the islands happen to be relatives of persons who are not particularly friendly towards the Government of Greece, and that no charges were actually brought against them, and will he have the matter looked into, as on previous occasions?

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Gentleman gives me any particulars I will, of course, consider them, but I must repeat that, while I cannot accept these facts without evidence, M. Maximos's Government have agreed in general to review these deportations.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the new Greek Government have given any undertaking that the persons deported are to be allowed to return home?

Mr. McNeil: I should hardly think that we were in a position to demand an under-

Taking from a sovereign Government, but I repeat that M. Maximos's Government have agreed in their declaration of policy to review the matter of deportation and exile.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (POLITICAL PRISONERS)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations His Majesty's Government have made to the Spanish Government on the desirability of holding, as soon as possible, public trials of political prisoners now in Spanish gaols.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have repeatedly represented to the Spanish Government the desirability of quickly bringing to trial those persons still held for political offences and the inhumanity of imposing harsh sentences upon those innocent of acts of violence. Recent trials have shown some improvement. They are still held before military courts but under the code of military justice in Spain all military trials are public and it has been possible for foreign observers and journalists to attend. Moreover, the defence is now conducted with greater freedom.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister of State whether His Majesty's Government have received notification of an amnesty decree of the Spanish Government, dated 17th January, 1947; whether he will invite the Spanish Government to make it quite clear that properly conducted trials will be held as soon as possible; and whether he will ask the Spanish Government if they will invite a properly accredited British legal representative to be an observer at these trials?

Mr. McNeil: On the latter part of the supplementary question, I am not as au fait with the niceties of this matter as the hon. Gentleman obviously is. On the first part, I am not sure that it would be competent or desirable for us to make representations officially to the Spanish Government on such a subject, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that a reply from the Spanish Government such as he has indicated would be welcomed both by the Government and, I believe, by the country in general.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. Gentleman make unofficial representations?

Mr. Wilson Harris: Would not all these representations carry greater weight if there were a British Ambassador in Madrid?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Spanish Government to the significant fact that tyranny and persecution are now causing grave disquiet even in the minds of their greatest friends in this country?

Mr. McNeil: I should think that perhaps that would be obvious by tomorrow.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask the Minister of State whether the political prisoners referred to are Spaniards and, if so, by what right we interfere with the administration of Spain?

Mr. McNeil: They are Spaniards. As I have already pointed out, we cannot and do not take official action, but it would be wrong and unusual for accredited representatives of His Majesty's Government in Madrid not to make representations in the sense indicated on matters which interest this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Linseed

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Food the price paid for one ton of linseed in the Argentine. in February, 1946, and November, 1946, respectively.

The Minister of Food (Mr. John Strachey): So far as I am aware, no linseed was purchased from the Argentine during 1946; certainly none was bought by this country.

Colonel J.R.H. Hutchison: Is it not a fact that the present price of linseed oil is £ 200 a ton, which is an all-time high price for this commodity?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be giving information and not asking for it.

Foreign Barley and Maize

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Food at what average prices f.o.b., barley was purchased in Iraq during the first nine months of 1946; and at what prices f.o.b. maize was purchased in the Argentine during the same period.

Mr. Strachey: As I explained to the hon. Member on 30th October last, I am not prepared to give this information.

Brigadier Mackeson: While appreciating that when negotiations are going on and contracts are being drawn the right hon. Gentleman may not wish to give publicity to any figures that are being discussed, may I ask why the elected representatives of the taxpayers of this country should not be entitled to know the result of any deal in which they are involved?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would care for me to recall my answer on the previous occasion:
Our buyers who are all experienced business men, continue to advise me that they would be hampered in their work on behalf of the nation if we disclosed the terms of particular transactions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT.30th October, 1946; Vol.428, c.93.]
I shall continue to support them by refusing to make public this information.

Brigadier Mackeson: Is this Fascism or Nazism?

Medical Bottles

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food on what evidence he bases his contention that the majority of 6-ounce bottles not returned to his Department are salvaged locally.

Mr. Strachey: Many local authorities still maintain an efficient salvage recovery service which includes 6-ounce medical bottles. I shall be most grateful if those that do not will institute such a service.

Mr. Shepherd: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman gives me an answer of that sort without producing any evidence to support it? Is it not a fact that people are returning their bottles when they get fresh bottles?

Mr. Strachey: It is largely a question of getting a maximum number of local authorities to do it.

Egg Packers (Profits Distribution)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food why his Department do not permit private egg packers to have the same rights of paying with a dividend and a bonus to their stockholders as are at present enjoyed by cooperative societies.

Mr. Strachey: I do not interfere in any way with the distribution of profits by private egg packers to their proprietors or stockholders. Where this differs from the method adopted by the cooperative societies, it is presumably due to differences in their articles of association.

Mr. Bossom: Is not the Minister aware that this is totally unfair and that it means that a great privilege is allowed to the cooperative societies which the private traders do not enjoy?

Mr. Strachey: I am not aware of anything of the sort. There is no reason why private traders should not give dividends on purchases, or in any other manner.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister make an announcement that they can do so?

Vinegar

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the liquid sold as vinegar nowadays is capable of satisfactorily pickling and preserving food for a reasonable period once the jar of preserves or pickles is open.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The standards of strength of vinegar are the same today as they were before the war.

Mr. Bossom: Is not the Minister aware that if preserves or pickles are put into this solution which is now being sold they begin to go fuzzy in a very short time?

Grape Fruit

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food what contracts have been placed with the U.S.A. for the purchase of grapefruit; and what efforts had been made to obtain supplies from Trinidad, Jamaica and British Honduras.

Mr. Strachey: Contracts have been made for the purchase of about 10,000 tons of grapefruit from the U.S.A. We expect to get rather more than half this quantity from Jamaica and Trinidad. A contract for the supply of about 1,000 tons from British Honduras has unfortunately had to be cancelled owing to extensive damage to the crop by black fly.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister satisfied that the expenditure of dollars on this purchase is justified in present circumstances?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I think it is justified. There are limits, of course, to the amount of fruit which we can buy from dollar sources, but it is very important to give the people in this country variety of diet.

Mr. Eden: Could not the money be better spent in consultation with the

Minister of Agriculture, in purchasing foodstuffs for our own agricultural industry?

Mr. Strachey: Oh, no, Sir, that is a complete misapprehension.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, We should buy every ton of foodstuffs which is available from dollar and other sources and give it a priority far higher than grapefruit, but the limitation here is the amount of supplies.

Captain Crookshank: Could the Minister get a consignment of lemons for the Minister of Fuel and Power?

Rabbits

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Food the reason for the scarcity of rabbits for sale for food in the shops: and if he proposes to take any action.

Mr. Strachey: Rabbits are only scarce in the shops in relation to the demand for them. Active steps are taken to reduce the number of wild rabbits primarily in the interests of food production, but also for their value as food. To supplement home supplies I hope to import at least 14,000 tons of rabbits from Eire, Australia and New Zealand this year— nearly one-third more, than last year.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Does the Minister feel satisfied that there is a fair allocation?

Mr. Strachey: The matter is subject to a control Order. We do what we can.

Sir W. Smithers: Why does the Minister keep on saying, "I propose to import"? Is it not the British taxpayer who pays the bill?

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Food what has been the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses in Great Britain since 1940; and what is the present number of such slaughterhouses.

Mr. Strachey: There has been a reduction of 202 in the number of slaughterhouses operated in Great Britain since 1940. The number of slaughterhouses at present in use is 606.

Mr. Williams: In view of that reduction, would the Minister consider opening some of the old slaughterhouses and so increase the efficiency of the whole slaughterhouse operation?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I should have thought that opening the old, closed down slaughterhouses would probably decrease efficiency.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why that is quite a different answer from the one I received from his Parliamentary Secretary last week?

Kippering (Containers)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that his Department have required kipperers in Scotland to pay for the wooden containers in which they are supplied with Norwegian herring for kippering; that this charge is new in the industry who object to it on the ground, amongst others, that it will increase the cost to the consumers; and if he will take steps to discontinue this demand.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given on 5th February to the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant).

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that this charge has been withdrawn since I put down this Question? Is not the Minister aware that the charge has caused a great deal of difficulty? In order to obviate some of the difficulty will he, in future, consults the fish trade before he makes any new charges?

Mr. Strachey: The fish trade was consulted both before and after the charge was made. One part of the charge has been continued and the other part has been withdrawn.

Seville Oranges

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food when, and under what conditions, it is proposed to make a distribution of Seville oranges for preserve making.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that, owing to severe frost and other adverse weather conditions in Spain, supplies of Seville oranges will be smaller than expected, and I am reserving them for the marmalade manufacturers. Bitter oranges for domestic use will be coming from other sources. There have already been allocations in some parts of the country, and as further supplies arrive distribution will be extended to other areas which have not yet had a share.

Rationed Supplies (Cold Weather)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that people living in remote parts of Exmoor have suffered privations during the recent severe weather owing to being cut off from supplies of rationed foods; that this, in normal times, is provided for by laying in a stock of food, particularly flour, and if he can make arrangements to overcome the present difficulty by permitting the use of a proportion of points prior to the due date to enable small stocks to be held against emergencies of this kind.

Mr. Strachey: Local food officers have full discretionary powers to enable people in isolated districts to lay in stocks of food by the use of coupons in advance, including points and bread coupons.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in parts of Exmoor people are sometimes living 10 miles from the grocer or the butcher, and that unless local food offices allow them stocks of food well in advance they will suffer privation?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me particulars of instances of local food offices failing to use their discretion.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the exceptionally cold weather, he will temporarily increase the allocation of food and fats throughout the country.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid supplies do not permit of this.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that at the present time a reduction in the ration of sweets is being considered? Would it not be possible to allow an equivalent amount of sugar so as to make up the reduction brought about by the Government's mishandling of the coal situation? Is it not a fact that manufacturers cannot get coal to make the sweets? What a Government!

Imports (Weighted Cost)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will define and explain the expression used by his Department, "estimated weighted cost" of various commodities under the current import programme.

Mr. Strachey: The weighted average cost per unit of an imported commodity is obtained by dividing the total cost by the total quantity, taking into account the different unit price paid according to source.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that these nebulous expressions are only a method of hiding up the Minister's policy of bulk purchase, which means national bankruptcy and starvation?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member cannot be familiar with the very usual statistical term "a weighted average." I think he should look it up— in any reference book.

Potatoes

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Food if he will give further information as to the manner in which it is proposed to restrict the sale and consumption of potatoes.

Mr. Strachey: My Department controls the disposal of the greater part of the remaining stocks of potatoes and will release them so as to keep the rate of distribution at last year's figures. All sections of the trade have agreed to cooperate.I am sending to the hon. Member copies of the statements which have been sent to the growers and the trade.

Mr. Butcher: Can the Minister explain why it was necessary to introduce bread rationing, whereas potatoes, which are an equivalent of bread, are likely to be restricted in this arbitrary manner, which will greatly hamper the ordinary housewife?

Mr. Strachey: The two questions are very different. We produce almost the entire supply of potatoes. We are not dependent upon imports except to a very small degree. The problems are very different.

Air-Commodore-Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman still agree that he will not ration potatoes this season?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Control Committees (Retail Fruit Trade)

Mr. Ward: asked the Minister of Food why the retail fruit trade is not represented as a classified trade on food control committees.

Mr. Strachey: Food control committees were set up primarily to look after the interests of consumers who have ten to twelve seats on the committee. Five retail trade members serve on a normal committee, one cooperative, one grocer, one butcher member, and two unclassified members. One or more of these may be a member of the retail fruit trade. I am not prepared to increase the membership of a committee which is already large, nor to put the retail fruit trade in a privileged position compared with dairymen, bakers, caterers and fishmongers by reserving one of the two unclassified seats for them.

Green Onions (Statutory Order)

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Food if he is prepared to consider altering the interpretation of Green Onion Seedling, S.R.& 0 Food Green Onions, from less than a ¼-inch to less than ½-inch, or to withdraw in its entirety the Order as regards the two classes less than 6½ inches in diameter and 1½ inches or more in diameter.

Mr. Strachey: I am at present considering the whole question of controlling onion prices during the coming season and cannot make any announcement at the moment.

Sir W. Darling: Arising out of that reply, will the Minister, when issuing the new control regulations, consider what steps he will take to provide greengrocers with the necessary machinery for the diametrical measurement of onions? It is extremely difficult to measure them with inch tapes.

Mr. Strachey: I will take into account the hon. Member's sage advice.

Major Guy Lloyd: Can the Minister inform the House from memory how many officials and staffs are employed in connection with this important matter of green onion seedlings?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Malayan Copra and Coconut Oil

Sir John Barlow: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of copra and coconut oil he has purchased from Malaya during each of the last convenient six months and the prices paid.

Mr. Strachey: As the reply involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Barlow: Is the Minister aware that there are very considerable supplies of copra available in Malaya if he will take adequate steps to obtain it?

Mr. Strachey: We are obtaining supplies from Malaya to the maximum possible extent.

Following as the table

Tons.
Price.




£
s.
d



Copra.







July
25
30
5
0
F.O.B.







bags included


August
—






September
—






October
—






November
1,650
30
5
0
F.O.B.







bags included


December
400
30
5
0
F.O.B.







bags included


Coconut Oil.







July
—






August
—






September
—






October
250
57
0
0
F.O.B.







in drums


Early November
1,150
57
0
0
F.O.B.







in drums


Late November
2,380
56
0
0
F.O.B.







in drums


December
1,778
56
0
0
F.O.B.







in drums

Tea Auctions, London (Reopening)

Sir J. Barlow: asked the Minister of Food whether he proposes to reopen the tea auctions in London at an early date; and if he is aware of the importance of retaining this market.

Mr. Strachey: It would be premature to make any statement.

Sir J. Barlow: Is the Minister aware that if tea auctions are not established in London it will mean that considerable foreign and banking trade will be lost, and possibly the Indian Government may secure the tax on profits in India, instead of the Treasury in London?

Mr. Strachey: I will take that matter into account.

Indian Tea

Sir J. Barlow: asked the Minister of Food if he has made a bulk purchase of Indian tea for 1947; and what is the quantity and price.

Mr. Strachey: Negotiations for the purchase of Indian tea are still going on.

Milk Registration

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction among milk consumers with the present restrictions which give the right to change milk suppliers only to members of cooperative societies, an arrangement can now be made whereby consumers might be permitted to change their suppliers once a year as is permitted in connection with grocery and meat registrations.

Mr. Strachey: When a private business is bought by a cooperative society customers who are not members of a cooperative society for anything else may change to another private trader; when one is bought by a private trader consumers who are already members of a co operative society may obtain their milk there also.

Bacon Supplies

Mr..J.H. Hare: asked the Minister of Food how many pigs were delivered to bacon factories during the months of November and December; and how many were slaughtered by self-suppliers under licence during these two months.

Mr. Strachey: 59,844 were delivered to home bacon factories in November, and 62,311 in December, 1946. Licensed slaughterings by self-suppliers in the two months were 93,063 and 115,521, respectively.

Mr. Hare: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there should be more pigs slaughtered by self-suppliers than are available in bacon factories for the general ration, and is he aware that the figure of pigs slaughtered by self-suppliers has risen from 6,000 in September to 93,000, which is the figure he has just given me?

Mr. Strachey: It is very doubtful from the enforcement and other points of view whether we could obtain those supplies for the bacon ration if we attempted to suppress the allowance of pigs to self-suppliers which is given today, but I will consider the question whether they ought to make a larger contribution to the bacon ration by forfeiting more of their bacon ration for each pig they slaughter.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister satisfied that pigs which are slaughtered by self-suppliers are slaughtered humanely?

Mr. Strachey: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can we have some more candles?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Be patriotic.

Mr. Hare: asked the Minister of Food how many pigs of average weight he does estimate would be required per month by British bacon factories to restore the recent cut of one ounce in the bacon ration.

Mr. Strachey: Taking the average weight of a bacon pig as I cwt., British bacon factories would require some 150,000 extra pigs every four weeks to provide another ounce of bacon for the ration.

Mr. Hare: In view of the answer to this and the previous Question, would the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that pigs which are slaughtered by self-suppliers are fattened by the self-suppliers and are not bought at the last moment on the open market in order to be killed some few days or weeks later?

Mr. Strachey: We take very careful steps by way of enforcement, and I do not think we can go further.

Imported Carrots

Mr. Hare: asked the Minister of Food in what quantities foreign carrots are being imported into this country; and for what reason.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, the quantity of carrots being imported is, unfortunately, small. Carrots are imported to eat.

Mr. Hare: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that horticulturists of this country were encouraged to grow large quantities of carrots this year but that they have been unable to sell them for eating and have had to dispose of them for animal feeding purposes? How does he reconcile the fact that he is importing carrots with the fact that there are carrots available for sale, certainly in East Anglia?

Mr. Strachey: When I inform the hon. Member that only 32 tons were imported during January, he will see the magnitude of the question.

Major Lloyd: Could not some of these be used to supplement the Government's White Paper and to provide the incentive needed?

Mr. Collins: Is it not a fact that the carrots now being imported are new young carrots which are not grown in this country at the present time? Would he see whether they could be imported without their foliage in order to save freight and costs, and to save the carrots going bad in transit?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER (HEAVY INDUSTRIES)

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Food if he will undertake to arrange that workers in the heavy industries shall have priority in the available supplies of beer.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid the proposal would be very difficult to operate. The brewing industry has agreed to distribute beer as fairly as possible to all customers, and I do not propose to ask them to vary this arrangement.

Mr. Griffiths: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] —may I call his attention to the fact that there is grave disquiet among heavy workers in this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is he also aware that the miners have already indicated, through their workingmen's clubs and the licensees, that if there is not a better supply of beer —in view of the cut threatened by the brewery companies—there will be trouble in the mining world?

Oral Answers to Questions — L.P.T.B.(PROPAGANDA POSTER)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject of the display on L.P.T.B. property of the poster advocating nationalisation of electricity.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The exhibition of these posters was contrary to the practice of the Board and they were taken down as soon as the Board became aware of this breach of their rule.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether these posters were taken down before a Question with regard to them appeared on the Order Paper of this House? And can he also tell the House whether a poster put forward by the electricity companies denouncing nationalisation was refused exhibition at the same time?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot make any statement with regard to the refusal at a particular time. I have given the hon. Member the decision with regard to the practice of the Board, and his Question undoubtedly did draw attention to its use.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Farm Produce

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Transport if he intends to ensure that farmers and smallholders will be allowed to carry their own goods and produce for unlimited distances in any motorcar, van or lorry, which they own.

Mr. Barnes: Goods vehicles used by a person engaged in agriculture solely for carrying the produce of, or articles required for the purpose of, the agricultural land which he occupies, do not require a carrier's licence and are, therefore, unaffected by the Transport Bill.

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates it will be possible to clarify the present position with regard to the use of pedestrian crossings and to give pedestrians and motorists, respectively, definite rights with regard to such crossings under specific conditions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G.R. Strauss): The obligations imposed on drivers and pedestrians by the Pedestrian Crossing Places (Traffic) Regulations 1941, are definite and clear but my right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider any suggestions for their improvement which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Unilateral Parking Signs, London

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport how many signs permitting the unilateral parking of motor vehicles in London streets during certain hours have been erected during the past six months; and what plans exist for the multiplication of such signs during 1947.

Mr. G.R. Strauss: No unilateral waiting signs have been erected in the Central London area during the past six months. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee are, however, con

Sidering whether further provision for unilateral waiting should be made.

Sir T. Moore: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this measure will overcome the increasing amount of traffic in central London?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, but it will help towards that end.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ss. "QUEEN ELIZABETH" (GOVERNMENT RESERVATIONS)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Transport how many passages have been reserved on Government account on sailings, since conversion, of the ss. "Queen Elizabeth"; and how many of these have not been taken up.

Mr. Barnes: On the seven West-bound voyages made by the "Queen Elizabeth" since her conversion, a total of 702 berths has been reserved for passengers paid for or sponsored by the Government. One hundred and thirty-nine of these berths were not taken up; these were returned to the Cunard White Star Line in sufficient time to enable them all to be utilised by other passengers.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS (S.E. ASIA)

Commander Pursey: asked the Prime Minister whether any recognition is contemplated for members of His Majesty's Forces who have been engaged in hazardous service in the Netherlands East Indies, minesweeping and bomb clearance since the cessation of hostilities in the Second World War.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. His Majesty has approved proposals that a medal should be granted for specified service in Java, Sumatra and French Indo-China, and also for Air Force service up to 4th October, 1945, in the removal of internees and prisoners of war in South-East Asia to Singapore or other ports for onward shipment. The medals to be given will be the Naval General Service Medal instituted in 1915 or the General Service Medal (Army and Royal Air Force) instituted in 1918, as may be appropriate. Both will be awarded with the Clasp "South-East Asia, 1945–46."


Owing to the hazardous nature of minesweeping duties the Naval General Service Medal is to be granted for such service since the cessation of hostilities, and the General Service Medal (Army and Royal Air Force) is to be given for bomb and mine clearance work ashore. The Clasps "Minesweeping, 1945–47"and "Bomb and Mine Clearance, 1945–48"will be awarded.
It has been decided that Mentions in Despatches granted for service since 2nd September, 1945, shall be accompanied by the award of the single bronze oak leaf Emblem of the type granted during the recent war. At the same time, approval has been given for the wearing of this Emblem by those who were granted mentions in despatches for operational service between the two world wars, for instance, in Waziristan (1921–24) and Burma (1930–32).
A short White Paper dealing with these matters is available in the Vote Office.

Commander Pursey: Is the Prime Minister aware that this announcement will be greatly appreciated by the personnel of the Services who have had to perform these duties under especially difficult conditions?

Lieut. Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what period of service is necessary to qualify for this minesweeping decoration? Is it the same as during the war—six months?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the White Paper for details.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN (DOMINION AND ALLIED FATHERS)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister how many claims for financial assistance have been lodged in respect of children of Dominion and allied soldiers in this country for whom the father is not prepared to accept responsibility; if he will give the total in respect of each country; what Government Department is specifically concerning itself with their welfare; and with what countries satisfactory arrangements have been made for the support of the children.

The Prime Minister: Individual cases of this kind are from time to time brought to the notice of the Departments concerned, but I have no precise information as to the total numbers involved. His Majesty's Government cannot provide direct financial assistance in these cases and their welfare will devolve, so far as it is not provided for by private resources, on the social services of this country. His Majesty's Government are anxious that means should be found by which further assistance can be provided, but it has not so far been possible to make arrangements such as are suggested in the last part of the Question, and I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 29th January and 3rd February.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the very great hardship which is caused in cases of this kind? Is it really not possible to enter into an agreement with one of the Governments concerned for the enforcement of the ordinary obligations which men incur in these circumstances?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer from the Foreign Secretary, he will find that that is precisely the avenue we are exploring in trying to reach a satisfactory solution.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a point which I made some six months ago, we were assured that negotiations were on the point of reaching fruition? Is he further aware that in the meantime real hardship is being caused to the people concerned, and is it possible to expedite the matter?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have no note of the noble Lord's interrogation. I will certainly look into it to see if something can be done.

Earl Winterton: It was not an interjection; it was raised on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Feedingstuffs (Chick Rearing)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many additional tons of feeding stuffs would be needed to double the ration allowed for chick rearing this spring;


and to what extent it is estimated that the extra production of eggs in the coming year on this basis would increase egg allocations to town consumers.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The answer to the first part is 35,000 tons. On certain assumptions rather less than one additional egg per person would be available for allocation during the twelve months from the hatching of the chicks.

Control of Engagements Order

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement about the Control of Engagements Order as applied to agricultural workers.

Mr. T. Williams: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question next Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will give him a reply.

Horticultural Industry

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the omission from the Agriculture Bill of any reference to horticulture, he will make a statement of the Government's intentions in regard to that industry, with particular reference to the protection of the home market from foreign competition.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statements made by myself and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry on the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. I can assure him that the Government fully recognise the national importance of the horticultural industry and that this will be taken into account in the forthcoming discussions on international trade.

Colonel Ropner: Does the Minister realise that this very important industry is suffering very considerable difficulties through the uncertainty, and does he appreciate the urgency of arriving at an early decision?

Mr. Williams: Not only do I appreciate the importance of the horticultural industry, but the producers' organisations also recognise that we appreciate the importance of it.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the importance of the Vale of Evesham?

Tractors and Ploughs

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications were received by the Norfolk A.E.C. for controlled tractors and combines in 1946; how many were granted; and how many have actually been supplied.

Mr. T. Williams: In 1946 the Norfolk W.A.E.C. received about 1,500 applications for controlled tractors, of which 1,100 were approved. It is estimated that over half were supplied by the end of the year. Most of the remainder should be supplied in the early part of this year. One hundred and fifty-six applications for combines were received for the 1946 harvest; out of the very limited supplies available, 25 were allotted to Norfolk and supplied.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing similar statistics for all the counties of England?

Mr. Williams: I would not, without notice.

Sir W. Smithers: Would he also make sure that no tractors are exported?

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement as to the supply position of track-laying tractors and deep ploughs; and whether these may yet be purchased without permit.

Mr. T. Williams: It is expected that about 70 per cent. more tracklaying tractors will be available for farmers this year than last, and there should be about three times as many deep digging ploughs. It would not be desirable at present to discontinue the permit system, which ensures that available supplies reach purchasers whose need is greatest.

Women's Land Army

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many members of the W.L.A. are unemployed at the present time.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware of any unemployment amongst members of the Women's Land Army, except where weather conditions have made work temporarily impossible for them, as for other agricultural workers.

Forestry (Land Acquisition)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the minimum area of land which the Forestry Commission will consider for acquisition.

Mr. T. Williams: It is not possible to lay down a minimum area of land which the Forestry Commission will consider for acquisition. Comparatively small areas can be considered, if within working distance of an existing Forestry Commission area.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in practice only very large areas are considered? Is it possible for him to give the Forestry Commission a special direction to consider smaller areas, particularly in development areas, where there is a certain amount of industrial waste land which is very suitable for planting but is always passed by?

Mr. Williams: I think the Forestry Commission are doing the best they can with the very limited labor supply available to them.

Colonel Ropner: Will the Minister say If this is a question only of the immediate supply of labour and, looking into the future, will he see that the Forestry Commission are made aware of the fact that in England. as opposed to Scotland, a large percentage of our woodlands is in small areas and should be taken into account?

Mr. Williams: I think the Forestry Commission are fully aware of this, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be unmindful of the fact that many of the Forestry Commission technicians are in Germany producing timber for our housing difficulties.

Repair Licences

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total value of licences applied for and recommended by his Department for work costing more than £100 in respect of the provision, improvement and repair of fixed equipment on agricultural land during 1946 or other convenient period.

Mr. T. Williams: During 1946 my Department recommended the issue of licences to a total value of £6½ millions. Of this over £5½ millions was in respect of work proposed to be carried out on agricultural land.

Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that satisfactory figure includes water supply?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

Damaged Sugar Beet

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much sugar-beet was awaiting delivery to the factories on 15th January; what has been the subsequent loss through frost damage; and what steps he is taking to ensure that there will be in future years sufficient factory capacity to handle, in the normal season, the whole of the crop grown under the Government's guarantee of markets and prices.

Mr. T. Williams: Approximately 900,000 tons of beet still remained to be delivered to factories on 15th January, but this has since been reduced to under 200,000 tons. It is not possible to estimate the total frost damage which the crop has suffered since 15th January, but the quantity rejected on arrival at factories has only been some 10,000 tons. The question of additional factory capacity is already under consideration but in 1946 a very heavy yield was secured from an exceptionally large acreage, and I consider that the outcome does not reveal any serious shortage of factory capacity.

Mr. Hurd: How will growers recover the loss incurred through the inability of the factories to deal with the acreage they grew under the Ministry's direction?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is aware that this is an exceedingly heavy crop and in some cases the areage has been exceeded. The two things taken together have brought about the extraordinary circumstances with which, I think, the factories have dealt fairly expeditiously.

Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware of the urgent need for an additional beet-sugar factory in Norfolk, which is a large county and in which the sugar-beet industry is of great importance?

Mr. Williams: The question of another factory is under consideration.

Mr. Hare: Will the Minister answer the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd)? Those farmers, who were directed to grow sugar-beet, have suffered great losses; is any compensation to be offered to them?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me that the factories have not been able to deal with the beet which is available. Only when the sugar factories are incapable of dealing with a normal crop will the question of compensation arise.

Milk Production

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether with a view to terminating milk rationing by the end of 1947, he will confer with the Minister of Food with a view to paying a bonus on increased gallonage of monthly outputs as compared with last year's production, and to import into this country more high-protein feedingstuffs for dairy cattle.

Mr. T. Williams: The impediment to the removal by the end of 1947 of existing restrictions on the supply of milk to consumers, does not lie in the price the producer receives, but in the physical capacity of the present national dairy herd to yield, with the feeding stuffs available, the necessary volume of milk. I confer frequently with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food about means to increase supplies of home produced food, and I am happy to assure the hon. Member that the Government are importing, and will continue to import, all the protein and other concentrated feeding stuffs that can be procured.

Mr. Dc la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to tell the House that no increased gallonage would be produced by paying a bonus to those able to increase their gallonage? Is it impossible to pay a bonus, and increase production? Does he not realise that increased gallonage is urgent?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but I am also aware that the cow is unconcerned with bonuses. It may be of some interest to the hon. Member if I told him that the milk yield last November of 110 million gallons, compared very favourably with 91 million gallons in November, 1938.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND

Tourist Traffic

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how much was spent by the Newfoundland Government in 1946, and how much is proposed to be spent in 1947, to develop the tourist traffic.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have been asked to reply. In the financial year 1946–47 a sum of 28,000 dollars was voted by the Newfoundland Government for the development of the tourist industry. In the forthcoming financial year it is proposed to make a grant of approximately 26,000 dollars.

Earl Winterton: In view of the great importance to Newfoundland of the tourist traffic, could a White Paper be published, or could information be placed in the Library as to how the money has been spent; whether it has resulted, for example, in any fresh hotels being built?

Mr. Henderson: I do not know about a White Paper, but I will be glad to have the question examined.

Earl Winterton: Surely, as it is the British taxpayer who pays the money, he should be given the information?

Mr. Henderson: I have already said that I will have the question examined.

Constituent Assembly

Mr. Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what arrangements have been made for the holding of the Constituent Assembly in Newfoundland.

Mr. A. Henderson: I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the arrangements explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his statement in this House on 11th December, 1945, elections to the National Convention, based on universal adult suffrage, took place in the summer of last year, and the 45 elected members assembled in St. John's in September. Following a short recess at Christmas, the Convention met again in January, and is still in session. The National Convention is charged with the object of making recommendations to the United Kingdom Government as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people of Newfoundland at a national referendum.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Rolling Stock and Equipment

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport when he was first aware of the serious position of the main line railways in regard to shortages of locomotives


carriages, wagons, coal supplies and track sleepers, respectively, arising from causes beyond the control of the railway companies.

Mr. Barnes: The deterioration of railway rolling stock, and reductions of railway stocks of track sleepers, are the results of enforced deferment of maintenance and replacements during the war and since, and of heavy wartime traffic. The accumulation of these arrears was, of course, known at the time I took office, and was beginning to show its effects in varying degrees. During the winter of 1945–46 the condition of the wagon stock gave me particular cause for anxiety. Special steps were taken, and have been sustained, to expedite repairs, and large orders for new wagons of standard type were placed by my Department. Deterioration of the locomotive stock became marked at a later date. Stocks of sleepers, already much below normal, fell sharply during last year owing to unexpected failure of supplies. Stock of railway coal have been reduced, in common with stocks of all other users, owing to inability of production to keep pace with consumption. I have throughout kept in close touch with the situation.

Sir R. Glyn: Does the Minister agree that those factors have been beyond the control of railway executives, and directors?

Mr. Barnes: I think that my reply, it it is carefully read, will show that they are the direct consequences of the war and, of course, even since the war the railways have had no let-up.

Mr. W.J. Brown: Will the Minister tell us how many locomotives, and how many trucks, we have exported from this country since the end of the war?

Mr. Barnes: I think that question should be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Since it is the policy of the Government to spend part of the American Loan on capital goods, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the possibility of placing orders for rolling stock in the United States?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport what order of priority has

been given to supplies of labour and materials for the following requirements of the main line railways, permanent way materials, rolling stock construction and repairs.

Mr. Barnes: The construction and repair of railway rolling stock command first preference for the filling of labour vacancies. Materials such as steel and timber for permanent way and rolling stock are allocated in accordance with available supplies, and with the estimates of requirements made by the appropriate Government Departments.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent passenger train speed restrictions will have to be introduced this year on the main line railways owing to shortages of sleepers for the track; and what steps he is taking to obtain adequate supplies to minimize the effect of this.

Mr. Barnes: I hope that it will not prove necessary to impose restrictions on speed on main routes during the first half of this year, and I can assure the hon. Member that all possible steps are being taken to secure improved supplies of timber sleepers wherever they are available. Arrangements have also been made to increase the production of concrete sleepers in this country.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make public the fact that unless the necessary amount of sleepers is produced it will be absolutely impossible to continue to operate the railways and to maintain the trade of the country?

Mr. Barnes: I think it is obvious that if we have not the necessary supplies of sleepers available, that state of affairs will arise. At the moment, attention is being concentrated on augmenting supplies.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PEOPLE (TRAVEL FACILITIES)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider making representations to the different transport authorities requesting them to allow the blind facilities to travel with a guide on payment of one fare, and the issuing of a card similar to that issued by the L.P.T.B., in order to facilitate travel


for the blind, as evidence of this nature enables proof to be made without examination or inquiry.

Mr. Barnes: For travel on the road services of the Board a card, available for a period, is issued upon submission of a certificate as to blindness. It enables the concession to be claimed for travel on business purposes only. On the rail services of the Board and of the main line companies the concession is available for business journeys and for certain other journeys. A certificate is required for each journey, except in the case of season tickets, and relates riot only to blindness but also to the purpose of the journey. Such certificates are issued by the Ministry of Pensions, and by recognised associations for the blind who can obtain forms from the railway companies. I have no reason to think that these arrangements arc not satisfactory.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are certain services which do not make this arrangement? Will he put pressure on those services?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member will give me any specific instances, I shall be delighted to deal with them.

FUEL AND POWER CUTS

Mr. Churchill: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make on the action of the Government in imposing cuts in electrical power.

The prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power on Friday explained to the House the circumstances which had necessitated the drastic cuts in electricity. The essential factors in the situation are these. Shortage of coal has led to a critical position every winter for the last five years owing to insufficient stocks. During the wax the drastic closing of non-essential industries, the blackout and the imposition of double summer time curtailed demand and enabled the crisis to be overcome. The weather conditions were' not excessively bad. This year we had in April only 6,000,000 tons in stock. Although every effort was made to increase stocks, the country started the winter with only 11 million tons in stock as against 14 million the year before. Meanwhile, the restarting of industry and the return to

peace conditions, caused a rapid increase of demand especially for electricity. Although there has been, in the last few months, a steady increase in coal production, demand has increased beyond alt expectations; in particular the consumption of coal to meet the increased demand for electricity greatly exceeded the estimate of the Central Electricity Board.
This prevented the building up of stocks at electricity stations to the four weeks' supply recommended by the Central Electricity Board. In addition to the coal position, the available generating plant in the country, which had not, owing to the war, been increased, was rapidly approaching a situation in which it would be overloaded. In these circumstances the public were invited to assist by being economical in the use of electricity, certain shedding of load were resorted to, and a scheme of rationing coal was devised, in consultation with both sides of industry. With the steady increase of production of coal, and with special measures taken to improve transportation, these measures should have enabled the country to get through the winter, given normal weather conditions. The present critical situation is clue to the spell of hard weather which we are now experiencing. The serious situation which the country now faces can only be met by the cooperation of all. We have had to concentrate on the maintenance of essential services, and for this reason we have been obliged to bring to a halt a great deal of industrial activity, and to ask the domestic consumers to economies in every possible way. I am well aware of the serious loss this will inflict on the country, and of the hardship which many people will be called upon to suffer, but it is an action which is essential at the present time.
As to immediate steps being taken, all Government Departments concerned the National Coal Board and the shipping, transport and electricity authorities have been continuously engaged in taking all possible steps to get coal moved to the power stations in London and the South-East, the Midlands and the North-West. In the prevailing weather conditions loading at docks and staithes has been difficult and slow, and ships from the North-East Coast and South Wales have been delayed by gales and fog. Railway traffic has been disorganised by the


accumulation of loaded wagons, freezing of points, and, in some cases, by the blocking of tunnels and lines with snow. Detailed instructions have been issued to the 340 electricity undertakings affected by the scheme of restrictions. By public notices in the Press and by the British Broadcasting Corporation consumers have been notified of what they must do. A list of essential services and industries which can continue to use power has been issued. Special arrangements have been made, both in London and in the regions, to settle questions of difficulty. The technical difficulty of separating essential services from the other consumers on the same distribution circuits has made it necessary, for the Government, in the main, to rely on the cooperation of those other consumers in effecting the necessary reduction in consumption. It is this technical difficulty which has always prevented selective cuts in electricity consumption by compulsion.
The eight main London power stations have slightly more than six days' stock of coal (113,000 tons). Their consumption last week was 126,000 tons. Supplies reasonably in sight in transit in ships or on rail should be enough to prevent further loss of stock before Wednesday or Thursday. But the arrival of these supplies largely depends on the weather, and particularly on there being no fog. If, as the Government hopes, there is full cooperation by all consumers in carrying out the restriction scheme, stocks at the power stations should begin to rise. If there is not that cooperation, even more drastic measures will have to be taken. Reports this morning show an excellent response. In the other areas affected, that is, where coal movements to the power stations are difficult, the position is broadly similar to that in London, with stocks in many cases at less than a week's consumption. As regards prospects beyond the next few days, coal production and deliveries will inevitably be at a low level through traffic disorganization, and consequent lack of empty wagons. As soon as there is a reasonable margin of stocks at power stations, the first step must be to restore power for industry. It is too early to forecast when this will be.
The House is aware of the special difficulty in London, which is accustomed for its supply of coal for electrical generation

to depend on sea-borne coal from the North-East Coast. I would like here again to pay a tribute, especially to the seamen, and also to the dockers, the railwaymen, and all other transport workers, for the splendid response they have made, and also to all the people of this country. If we are to maintain essential services, there must be a drastic restriction of consumption of electricity by the general public. Owing to the nature of the electricity service this cannot be effected by order. It can only be done if people will follow the directions which have been given in the general interest. I propose this evening, as has already been announced, to broadcast to the nation, in the 9 o'clock news, an appeal to the people to cooperate in getting over this difficult period

Mr. Churchill: May I, with the indulgence of the House, say, first, that it is the duty of everyone to comply with the directions of His Majesty's Government, and to do their utmost to help the public need in this awkward situation?
I should then like to ask the Prime Minister how it was that the intimation of these drastic cuts in the electricity supply, affecting the whole industry of the country, was only mentioned to the House at the end of a speech by the Minister of Fuel and Power, lateish on the afternoon of Friday last; and why due warning was not given beforehand? Further, is the Prime Minister also aware that there has been no opportunity of any kind to discuss this most important announcement, made by the Minister of Fuel and Power so late on the last occasion when we met? In these circumstances, what are the Prime Minister's ideas about an immediate Debate upon this matter?

The Prime Minister: The decisions to make these cuts were taken on Friday morning. That was the time at which we were assured that the state of affairs demanded it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power had to deal with a number of matters of which notice had been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and an hon. Member on the other side of the House. After dealing with those points, raised on the particular matter of restrictions, and so forth, he then made the announcement to the House. With regard to further opportunities for debate, I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of


the House will be perfectly willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman, if he makes any proper request.

Mr. Churchill: May I ask why the decision to make these drastic cuts was only reached as late as the morning of Friday? Secondly, once the decision was made, why did not the Minister of Fuel and Power, or the Prime Minister himself, or some other important functionary opposite, inform the House immediately, in order to enlighten them on the Debate, which would never have taken place if we ourselves had not forced it upon the House?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The prime Minister: I gather there are quite a number of other hon. Members who also want to ask questions. I am quite prepared to answer them. We took our decision on this matter when the reports of the experts told us that it was necessary. That was not until Friday morning. The House was meeting at eleven o'clock, and we were still discussing these matters and receiving reports when the House met. We made the statement as early as we could.

Mr. Eden: Since the right hon. Gentleman was not here on Friday, he is not aware that the Minister of Fuel and Power gave us no information at all about the situation until the closing phrases of a forty minute speech, the greater part of which was spent in abusing the Opposition for having dared to suggest that there might conceivably be industrial uncertainty and crisis. If the Minister was in full possession of all this knowledge at the time when he came to the House, does not the Prime Minister think it would have been fair and just to the House to give it then instead of keeping it concealed until so late on Friday afternoon?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was replying to questions and attacks made upon him. He gave the information after that.

Captain Peart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fuel crisis, in the words of yesterday's "Observer,"has ancient roots involving the call-up of miners in 1942, and the long neglect of modernisation and mechanisation? Will my right hon. Friend appeal to His Majesty's Opposition to behave as patriotically as the miners?

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the Prime Minister, or the acting Leader of the House, what it is proposed to do now? May I also be allowed to remind the Prime Minister that the statement made by the Minister of Fuel and Power was made as late as half-past three or quarter to four, and the only opportunity that we then had was confined to a very short space of time? I suggested then that today should be set aside for a full Debate upon the situation. I wish to reinforce that by saying that, not only was there a serious statement by the Minister then, but an even more serious one has been made now by the Prime Minister himself. The country is entitled to know, not only what the steps are in detail, but what the effect will be. The country expects this House to give guidance and the fullest possible information. Therefore, would it be possible for the Business for the day to be changed and for us to have a full Debate upon this matter?

The Prime Minister: I think the acting Leader of the House should reply to that question, which is one on Business.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I am aware of the difficult circumstances of the Debate last Friday. There is a very deep interest in the House and in the country and I shall be very glad—[Laughter.] I wish hon. Members would treat me with some respect. There is anxiety—of course there is. I am trying to reply to a perfectly reasonable question, which was put by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. I do not want any heat about this. It is most unfortunate that circumstances pressed us so hard, that the House on Friday did not have an opportunity of discussing the statement. I am perfectly prepared to arrange, through the usual channels, at the earliest possible date, for a Debate to take place.

Mr. Clement Davies: Why not today? I am grateful to the acting Leader of the House for his courtesy. This matter is so vital that I suggest that the only way in which we can debate it in full now, is for the Government to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Greenwood: The Prime Minister has made a statement, the full import of which it is very difficult for people to appreciate when they have only heard it


read.[Interruption.] There must be a lot of statisticians opposite who can understand all the figures which have been quoted. I should have thought a little reflection might have been all to the good. I am willing to make a concession to the House— [Interruption.] Ignoring these interruptions, I am prepared to make a concession for an early Debate. If there is an insistent request, indicating that the House wants it today — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know whether there is yet, but if there is, I assure the House that the Debate can take place today I should have thought myself, that it might have been more advisable to have it tomorrow, but I am in the hands of the House.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In support of the proposal made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party, I would press for an immediate Debate. This morning at 9 a.m. nearly a quarter of a million workpeople were put out of work in Birmingham, and in Sheffield the electricity supply was cut oft and practically the whole industry of that great city was brought to a standstill. This is the most serious crisis we have faced in our time.

Mr. Greenwood: After we have disposed of the Motion in connection with the Report of the Committee of Privileges, which I think must be taken at the earliest opportunity, and which I hope will not take too long, I am then prepared to have the Adjournment moved to allow a general discussion on this matter.

Mr. Churchill: I think this is a very good solution, achieved, if not through the usual channels, at any rate through broader channels on the Floor of the House. It seems to me that the Debate on the Committee of Privileges ought not to take very long. I understand that we shall then get on to an immediate discussion on the fuel and power situation. In those circumstances I will not press the Motion which, otherwise, it would have been my duty to move, for the Adjournment of the House.

PRIVILEGES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Report [3rd February] of the Committee of Privileges considered.

Mr. Speaker: This is a somewhat novel procedure for this House. Therefore, perhaps I had better explain that it is customary, before a Motion such as the Motion on the Paper in the name of the Lord Privy Seal is moved, for the hon. Member concerned, if he so wishes, to be allowed to make a statement to the House. Then the custom is that the hon. Member withdraws, so that the House can discuss, not in his presence, the Motion before them. Therefore, I must ask the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) if he cares to make any statement.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of your invitation. I do not propose to make a long speech; I do not think it is necessary. I hope that all hon. Members, if they have had the opportunity, have read the whole Report, and not merely the conclusions. If they have done so, they may agree with the main points in it. It is not for me, in my particular position, to criticise or make remarks on the findings in the Report. I do, however, want to say this. I made my statement on the evening of the incidents several weeks ago, and I then said that, in the first instance, I was responsible for lowering the dignity of the House. I apologised then, without any request from anybody in this House to do so, because I felt that I had done wrong. If I have to apologise again, it cannot add to the sincerity which I employed on that occasion several weeks ago.
In regard to the second incident, I would say this. Whatever the content of the Report and its conclusions, whatever the character of any particular evidence in it, I have nothing to be ashamed of. With regard to that incident, throughout the whole of that period I acted as a responsible Member of this House. I took no aggressive part whatsoever in that incident. I have given my evidence, and I stand by it. I gave my evidence on oath, and I am not required to do it now. All I would say is that, on my word of honour, I told the truth. I have done nothing wrong in regard to the second incident. The Committee, of course, reached its own findings on the evidence.


I am glad to have this opportunity which you, Mr. Speaker, have given me of making this statement before a full House, and I have spoken this afternoon, however briefly, with some feeling. That, of course, would be understandable, but may I say, and I hope the House will accept it, that that feeling is expressed not so much for myself, as for the dignity and standing of this House? It is right that this House should come to a proper con- elusion, and I feel, as much as if it were anyone else, that a conclusion should be arrived at by hon. Members of the House after a careful study of the whole of the evidence. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity of speaking.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

3.54 P.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move,
That the conduct of Philip Piratin, Esquire, a Member of the House and Thomas Daniel Lucy, as found by the Committee in their Report was a gross violation of the order and decorum of the House; that this House doth agree with the Committee in their opinion that Philip Piratin, Esquire, was guilty of a gross contempt and Thomas Daniel Lucy of a contempt of the House; and that this douse places on record its high displeasure with their conduct and its determination to proceed with the utmost severity against future offenders in like cases".
It falls to me to move this Motion on the Order Paper relating to the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges, arising out of its investigation of two incidents which took place within the precincts of the House on 18th December and in which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and a member of the Press Gallery were involved. In the first place, I would like to pay a tribute to my colleagues on your Committee of the House for their co-operation in what was, to all of us, a most painful task. The House will have noted that the Committee's Report is unanimous, and it will, I hope, therefore, commend itself to the House.
The House is called upon today to give its approval to a Motion to place on record its high displeasure with the conduct of the persons concerned, and its: determination to proceed with the utmost severity against future offenders in like cases. I should like to make it clear at this stage, that both the hon. Member for Mile End and Mr. Lucy apologised for the parts they played in the events which took place on that day. The hon. Member for

Mile End has repeated, more or less, what he said in this House and before your Committee. I should also like to make it clear that both persons concerned expressed satisfaction with the way the proceedings had been conducted.
There can be no doubt that both a Member of this House and a member of the Press Gallery were guilty of an affront to the honour of this House, and the events cannot, in the circumstances, be ignored by the House. When the Second World War broke out, Parliament took on a new dignity, and felt a new pride in the part it had played in the past and the part which it would play through the life and death struggle in which we were engaged. The House, in those days of 1939, realised that these buildings in which we sit were the symbols of an attitude towards life, and a way of life which Hitler hated. That made us or those of us 'who sat in that last Parliament, determined that, even if Hitler destroyed the shell of Parliament, he could never destroy its spirit and its tradition. We modified our Standing Orders to meet the circumstances, and succeeded, in very difficult conditions, in maintaining the character of our Chamber. After the old Chamber was destroyed, we even carried on with efficiency in Church House, in strange surroundings and with some inconvenience.
During this time, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, a new comradeship grew up between hon. Members of the House, Pressmen and servants of this House. Many of them served together in the Home Guard or in fire watching. Hon. Members and Pressmen were brought together more closely when they shared a common dining room, and I think everybody in those days welcomed and derived much from the closer association of all concerned in the prosecution of a common duty, and hoped that it would be maintained after victory. The country saved its democratic institutions, and especially the Mother of Parliaments, but democracy can live healthily only if people show tolerance to one another. The success of a democratic State depends as much on the conduct of its citizens as on the soundness of its principles. It is sad that, after the House of Commons had vindicated itself and when it had been nourished and re-invigorated by a large number of new hon. Members, whose duty it is to cherish the honour and dignity of the House, that


a Member of this Assembly, and a member of the Press Gallery should have been guilty of high breach of Privilege.
I do not wish to stress this. I hope I have disclosed no prejudice; I hope, further, I have shown no bitterness. I trust that, when this unhappy occasion has ended, all concerned with the life of the House of Commons will deem it a high duty to protect the dignity and decorum of the Commons House of Parliament.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the acting Leader of the House. He conducted the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges with his usual good humour and good taste. I do not think that the House would expect me to plunge into a careful analysis of the very fine statement which he has put on record for the guidance of future Parliaments, and to go into the question of Hitler and other matters, which seem very remote from the scuffle in the cafeteria, which, unfortunately, occurred before we parted for the Christmas holiday. However, I must say that I do not in any way underrate the importance of the House preserving its dignity and authority within the Palace of Westminster, and I frankly say that I started upon this Committee, which I regularly attended, with the quite definite feeling that an assault by a stranger upon a Member was more to be condemned than an assault by a Member upon a stranger, for the very simple reason, which, I think, will commend it self to all parties, that strangers need not come here if they do not want to, whereas Members are bound to do so in the discharge of their duty towards their constituents, and of the great functions which are entrusted to this ancient House.
As discussion went on, my views became a little modified by the evidence I should like to draw the attention of the House to one point in the Resolution which we are asked to accept. We are asked to censure the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) for "a gross contempt,"and Thomas Daniel Lucy for "a contempt."The omission of the adjective in the second instance was not intended by the Committee to be without significance, as, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will agree. I strongly advise the House to accept this Motion, and not to push the matter any farther. I think

that it was right to take serious cognisance of the dispute which occurred and, in a way, to make heavy weather of it. These things ought not to be allowed to slide, because strong passions run high inside this Assembly. At the same time, people are expected to have strong characters, and to contain those strong passions, and the dignity and Rules of the House must be effectively preserved. They will, I think, be preserved by assenting to the Motion which the sight hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the House has just moved. I, personally, shall support it, and I trust that my hon. Friends will join with me in so doing. The Leader of the Liberal Party, who was a Member of the Committee, will, no doubt, speak later upon this subject.
There is, however, one point which I would like to mention before I sit down. It is about the journalist, Thomas Daniel Lucy. I trust that he will not lose his access to the House and his opportunity of practising his profession. He has been ten years a journalist in the Gallery of the House of Commons. It was quite evident to us from the witnesses who came before us, that he was a welcome, habitual and, if I may say so, a gentlemanly and polite member of those journalists who frequented the cafeteria. It was perfectly clear that he was an old customer who had, over a long period of time, behaved himself with extreme decorum and courtesy, and it would be a great pity, no penalty being inflicted on the other party to the quarrel, if he should suffer any severe deprivation of facilities in the prosecution of his profession I must say this in all fairness, because I believe that that would be the wish of the hon. Member for Mile End, as recorded in his evidence.

4.5 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want, in the strongest possible way, to oppose this outrageous Motion. I think that the conclusions of the Committee of Privileges are very bad conclusions, but I will say that that Committee. like Mr. Gradgrind, dealt with facts and that, on facts, they came to their conclusions. But the imponderables are missing. There is no sufficient consideration given to the circumstances which preceded the incident in the cafeteria; there is no sufficient consideration given to the characters of those involved, and there is no serious consideration given to motive, such as. for


instance, whether the Pressman was particularly motivated at that moment to approach the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), or whether the hon. Member for Mile End just laid down his tray and committed the first assault.
On the Thursday afternoon in question, I spoke to the hon. Member for Mile End and persuaded him that he should accept the Report, and, as the Leader of the Opposition says, finish with the business I told him that the Leader of the House would come in with a Motion accepting the Report and regretting the incident, and that that would be all that there was to it. I showed him the Report of the proceedings taken against a Tory Member in this House for a far worse offence than that committed by the hon. Member for Mile End. I showed him what happens in a case of this kind. In the case of the Tory Member, who was guilty of a very much worse offence than that now under discussion, the Motion put to the House was:
That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee.
That is the character of the Motion that was moved on Tuesday, 29th January, 1941, as can be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date. There the matter finished. That is what I thought would happen. Two things determined me to oppose this Motion. One was an incident on Thursday night between the same Pressman and myself; and the other is the character of the Motion. I cannot understand how anyone. could be responsible for drawing up such a Motion if they had looked at the precedents which are to be found concerning Members on the other side. Before I relate the incident, let me remind the House that in the last Parliament we were not all such kindly brothers as the acting Leader of the House would assume. As a matter of fact, on one occasion—it happened on many occasions, but this is one occasion—the then Prime Minister got so deeply under my skin, that he brought down my outer. moral defences. The jeering laughter from the benches behind him completed the job and I was lost.

Mr. Churchill: What I failed to do was fully to trace the diversionary activities.

Mr. Gallaeher: The right hon. Gentleman is not putting any diversionary activities on me at the present moment. The result was that I shouted across the Floor language that should never have

been used in this House. Mr. Speaker, later in the evening your predecessor sent for me and asked me to agree that my language should be kept out of the OFFICIAL REPORT. With such a desirable and sensible suggestion I immediately agreed. But I went out of this House immediately after the scene in a condition totally unfit for human association. My Friends—and I have many good friends in this House—had good understanding and consideration. They left me severely alone until I had my emotions under control again. On Thursday evening I was coming from the Tea Room to this House. Maybe it is as well that I was coming from the Tea Room and not from another place. As I passed through the corridor leading to the public Lobby, some Pressmen went flashing past. One of them got his eye on me as he went past, and he shouted, "Hey, Willie!"I turned and went to meet him. He said in a plaintive sort of way, "Willie, you and I have been good friends for many years, haven't we?""Sure,"I said. I was in a mood when I would agree with anybody about anything. "Sure,"I said, "We have been good friends.""Willie,"he said,"you will not believe the story that I am an anti-Communist because of the trouble I had with Phil Piratin?"I said, "What?"I did not know the lad's name. I know all the Pressmen, but I do not know their names. I did not know who Lucy was. I said, "What? You are the man who had trouble with Piratin? No, no, do not get me involved. There is enough harm done.""But, Willie,"he went on. I said "No buts,"and left him. In the Members' Lobby I met another Pressman with the acting Leader of the House, to whom I told the story, and we had a good laugh at the folly and the irresponsibility of this lad.

Mr. E.P. Smith: On a point of Order. Is this sort of hearsay evidence desirable, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Gallacher: Hearsay evidence?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is opposing the Motion, and I think he must be allowed to state his case in his own way.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the hon. Gentleman's drift, he is trying to bring out facts which would prove that the conclusions which were


arrived at by the Committee of Privileges were, in fact, misguided or mistaken. But, surely, if that were so, and if these facts, which I understood, took place at about the time of the incidents complained of— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— or shortly afterwards—surely, if those facts were in the hon. Member's possession, it was his duty to put them before the Committee of Privileges as evidence. But, as I understand the position in regard Order, it is this: This is not only a gross injustice to the journalist concerned who cannot answer back, but it is also an affront to the Committee of Privileges that totally new evidence should be brought to us here at the present time, and I submit to you, Sir, that this is a gross abuse of the rights of a Member of this House, and it is out of Order.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept the hon. Member's submission. It seems to me that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is opposing the Motion because he says the conclusion arrived at by the Committee is wrong and, therefore, he is entitled to give reasons why he thinks it is wrong. If by any chance his statement is prejudicial to a journalist of the House, that is his affair. I cannot stop him. He is responsible for making his case in his own way.

Earl Winterton: Mr. Speaker, I understand your Ruling is that though it is a matter of honour to the House not to repeat a private conversation outside, there is no Rule of Order which enables you to call a Member to Order?

Mr. Speaker: There is no Rule of Order by which I can stop him. It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member.

Earl Winterton: I am obliged to you, Sir. It is a breach of honour.

Mr. Gallacher: I am speaking in defence of my colleague, as I am certain that hon. Members opposite would defend their colleagues. In the case to which. I referred of the Tory Member, the then Prime Minister said that it was very painful for him. He said, "It causes me very great pain,"when one of his colleagues was condemned. Believe me, it causes me very great pain when I read a Motion of this kind. Let me make my point. I was in a very good

mood when I came from the Tea Room; I was pleased with the world. But, supposing I had gone from this House after being 'operated upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr: Churchill) and the wild cohorts behind him; supposing I had gone out of here in a passion, as I have in the past, and this fellow stopped me, anything might have happened. I am certain that if I had been in the mood that I have been in sometimes, when I have had a pretty tough time in this House, and he had come to me with that story, I would have raised the roof in the public Lobby; I would have been heard from here to Scotland.
It all depends on the circumstances in which an approach is made to an individual, and all Members of this House will appreciate what a strain it is to go through such an experience as the hon. Member for Mile End went through that afternoon. All his emotions were worked up, and he was in a highly nervous condition at a time when no one but a friend should have approached him. Surely, that can be understood. For an old Member it would be bad enough, but for a new Member it is a very hard experience to have to go through what the hon. Member for Mile End went through at that time. He was in a condition when anything untoward could easily have irritated him. Anyone is capable of being irritated. What about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford getting irritated in this House, and throwing a book across the Table at another Member?

Mr. Churchill: It was the other hon. Member who threw the book across the Table at me

Mr. Gallacher: Of course, in that case there was no differentiation as between an hon. Member and a stranger, so it applies so far as the other hon. Member is concerned. Take tie case of the late Secretary of State for India, who is no longer a Member of this House. He stepped out on to the Floor and hit another hon. Member, because he was irritated by something that had happened. It has happened on several occasions. I say that this approach was made to the hon. Member for Mile End at a time when his friends would have left him alone, and when only a fool, or one determined to provoke him, would have made an approach or forced himself


upon his attentions. It is shameful, after. what the hon. Member for Mile End went through that evening, that this should not be taken into account, and that we should get conclusions such as this drawn by the Committee.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Collie): What was that incident?

Mr. Gallacher: It was the affair in which he had to make a statement and to defend his position as a Britisher against the attack that had been made upon him by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), —the oldest Member of the House, against one of the youngest men—

Earl Winterton: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to a Ruling which you gave on Friday, l9th December—

Mr. Speaker: If I might interrupt the noble Lord, I was just about to call the attention of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to that fact. We cannot go back to previous Debates, nor to incidents prior to this Report. We cannot rehash the whole of what happened shortly before.

Mr. Gallacher: I was trying to explain the imponderables. The circumstances which led up to the event are very important, and without them there is no possibility of understanding what happened down in the cafeteria. As every hon. Member on this side knows, the hon. Member for Mile End—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to your specific Ruling on this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] I am certainly not going to sit down. I am going to put a point of Order. On the evening of 19th December you said, in reply to a statement which I thought fit to make, to the effect that I did not propose to take part in the deliberations of the Committee:
Perhaps I might, for the noble Lord's consolation, say that this matter did not arise out of the incident this afternoon."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1946; Vol.431, c.233]
That being so, in view of your specific Ruling, I suggest, with great respect, that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to suggest by insinuation that what had occurred had anything to do with the incident in question.

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is perfectly correct. I would point out that the issue then was a statement made by the hon. Member for Mile End in which he merely gave some facts about his parentage. The quarrel which took place occurred the day before. The noble Lord then wanted to rise, but he was told that that matter could not be pursued.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of Order. May I suggest, Sir, with respect, that your recollection is mistaken, and that the quarrel took place on the evening following upon that statement? The statement was not made following the quarrel.

Mr. Speaker: After Questions on l9th December the hon. Member for Mile End made a statement about his parentage.

Mr. S. Silverman: It was before.

Mr. Speaker: After Questions is always the time for making personal statements, and that was when the hon. Member made it. I can tell the hon. Member that I knew something about it, because I saw the statement before it was made; I saw that it was quite innocuous, and did not offend anybody, and was quite in Order. The quarrel with Mr. Lucy took place after that statement had been made—half an hour or an hour afterwards.

Mr. Gallacher: I was not suggesting that the quarrel between the hon. Member for Mile End and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham had anything to do with it. That is not the point. The point is, that having to make a statement of the character which he made, is an ordeal for an old and experienced Member of Parliament; but it is a much greater ordeal for a new Member of Parliament to get up before a full House and make a statement of that kind. One cannot get up and make a statement of that kind, and be cool, calm and collected —certainly not any new Member of this House. The emotions are aroused, and the nerves are on edge. When the hon. Member went out the one thing his friends should have done was to have let him alone, in order to give him time to quiet down, and to get himself in order. I say that only a fool, or someone determined to provoke him, would have thrust himself upon his attention at that particular moment.
I say the conclusions that have been drawn are based upon mere facts —and in


my opinion are not even exactly in accordance with the facts—but the imponderables have been left out. The circumstances leading up to the event, the characters of the individuals, and the motive that was associated with the act, have not been properly or effectively dealt with. Therefore, I oppose this Motion. I say that hon. Members opposite would never have had such a Motion drawn up about any hon. Member on the other side of the House. Hon. Members can go back to all the precedents they care to, but they will always get Motions in the terms of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I have quoted:
That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee
and finish at that. If a Motion had been brought in, say, "That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee, and regrets that this incident took place. "I would have offered no opposition, but would have said, "Let the matter go and be finished with it. "But in view of the traditions and precedents I cannot see how any hon. Member on this side of the House can give approval to such a Motion, directed against the bon, Member for Mile End, and I hope the Motion will be opposed.

4.28p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I had not intended to intervene at all in this Debate, and I shall do so now for only a few minutes. I had the honour of being one of those nominated by the House to sit upon this Committee of Privileges. May I say at once, that having sat on many tribunals, I know of no tribunal which takes its duties more conscientiously than that, upon which hon. Members of this House sit? As has been pointed out in the short Report that the Committee has issued, in our desire to be perfectly fair to everybody we created a new precedent in this particular case. It had been drawn to our attention that there might possibly be a conflict of evidence. For the first time, I think, before that Committee, the two persons immediately involved were asked to attend, and allowed to call any evidence they desired, and to ask any questions. I would add, that at the end both persons, very rightly, and I think properly, thanked the Committee for the way in which the Committee had acted in taking evidence.
I do not know what are the imponderables mentioned by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The Members of the Committee had it well in mind that, when the incident took place, the hon. Member for Mile End might have been disturbed in his emotions, as the hon. Member for West Fife suggested.

Mr. Gallacher: Might have been what?

Mr. Davies: He might have been disturbed in his emotions.

Mr. Gallacher: "Might" have been?

Mr. Davies: One cannot say more than that. What I want to point out is this. What we desire to do by this Motion is to maintain the order and dignity of the House. They must be maintained; and we are making it perfectly clear that there can be no brawling within the precincts of the House. No punishment has been suggested either to the hon. Member for Mile End or to Mr. Lucy. May I also. point out, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), with regard to Mr. Lucy —and I am sure that this is the desire of every one of the Members of this Committee —that there should be no punishment meted out to Mr. Lucy. Whatever was done between these two, let it be at an end. But the House cannot pass such an incident by, without recording its displeasure, and making it perfectly clear that in future, anything of that kind done in this House will be met, possibly, with quite severe penalties. It is with those words that I would commend to the House the Motion that has been moved by the acting Leader of the House.

4.32 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert: May I say a few words as an Independent after the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)? I entirely agree with him that he has a great many friends amongst hon. Members on all sides of the House; and it is a great tribute to the House that he has. I gladly count myself among them. But I do think he should think once or twice before he abuses that privilege —and, indeed, the Committee of Privileges. When I heard his speech I, at last, understood —or began to understand, I thought —a very surprising heading which I saw in a very important newspaper this morning. At the


head of the principal leading article I saw: "Tory Plot. "I thought, "What in Heaven's name have the wicked Tories done now? Is it the wreck of the schooner "Hesperus "? Is it the Battle of Hastings? Is it the avalanches on the mountain of Everest? Is it the death of King Charles I? What is it? "It could not, of course, be the misfortunes which are upon this country at the moment. Oh, no. This Tory plot I now perceived must have to do with the Report of the Committee of Privileges —on which, I see, among seven or eight Members, there are two Tories. Only on that slim foundation, the hon. Member has thought it fitting to speak, and make a charge against the Committee of Privileges of this House which even he, with his special experience of the principles and practice of justice in other countries, should not have thought fit to make, I think.

Mr. Gallather: I said that I persuaded the hon. Member for Mile End to accept the Report, as I was going to accept it, on the understanding that some formal Motion was to be put, as was put in the previous case of a Tory Member. I thought that the same form of Motion would be put in this instance. That is what I told the hon. Member for Mile End, and I showed him the sort of Motion that I thought would be put in this case. I said to him, "Let us accept it and let it go" I ask why the form of Motion put in the case of a Tory Member for a worse offence could not have been put in this case.

Sir A. Herbert: If this is the technique of the hon. Gentleman and his colleague in accepting a Report, God help us If they ever have occasion to oppose one. A small point, but the House will have observed that this and, according to the hon. Member, other similar incidents approaching violence, have taken place in the cafeteria, and places where they drink nothing but tea and coffee, and that sort of thing. I have often remarked that if you want real Christianity, and really good fellowship, go to the places where people drink beer and wine; for un-Christian backbiting and envy, go to the tea-party. But my main purpose is —I say it with respect and affection for the hon. Member —to induce him to think twice before he again thinks fit to attack in such a manner the Committee of Privileges on which there are, in fact, two Tories, And I hope that

later on we shall hear what the "Tory plot "was.

4.36 p.m.

Earl Wintertan: There are two matters arising out of this Report which, I think, should be mentioned in justice to one of the persons condemned. I would say that I entirely agree with my colleagues in thinking it is an admirable Report. The first thing arising is the attack which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has just seen fit to make upon Mr Lucy. I have had, as the House knows, long experience of this House. I am glad to say that this is the first time that I have heard an hon. Member —who is, of course, universally popular with everyone in the House; universally popular and respected —I say this is the first time I have heard an hon. Member get up and repeat an alleged private conversation that he had with a stranger in the Lobby. It is the first time I have ever heard it done, and I hope, for the honour of the House —and for the honour of the Communist Party —that it will never be done again. I hear with the gravest suspicion any story of the kind told in the House by the hon. Member for Galashiels —[Interruption] —for West Fife. I apologise to Galashiels. I do not want to include Galashiels with the constituency which the hon. Member for West Fife represents.[Hon. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It may be cheap, but it is not as cheap as the attack made by him upon a journalist in this House, who cannot answer for himself. That is worse than cheap; it is disgraceful.
Now I turn to two remarks by other hon. Members about this gentleman. I hold no brief for Mr. Lucy; I have never met him, as far as I know. Quite inadvertently, I am sure, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) did this gentleman an injustice at the time this incident was first reported to the House. The hon. Member for Nuneaton, rising, said that he understood that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End had, outside this Chamber but in the precincts of the House, been twice visibly assaulted and battered. Does he now realise —I am sure he did not then —from reading the Report, that nothing of the kind occurred? The hon. Member was not assaulted and battered, though there were the incident upstairs and the incident downstairs.


The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon rose and said that he regretted to say:
I also have some knowledge of these events. The person guilty of the repeated assault was a Press correspondent accredited to the service of this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday 19th December, 1946; Vol.431.c.2246.]
There was no repeated assault.
When I heard these two hon. Gentlemen, I turned to my colleague on the Bench beside me and said, in a tone that is sometimes accidentally heard round about — fortunately, however, I was not overheard on that occasion — "This sounds to me somewhat fishy." I think it was fishy. I could not believe it possible that any journalist, or person accredited to the House, could have done that. I make this suggestion in all courtesy to hon. Members —and I think they will accept this suggestion —that it would be as well in future that only those who have actual knowledge, visible knowledge, of an incident of this kind should come and speak in this House on it. I think it should be mentioned, because it does great injustice to this journalist, to say that he twice assaulted and battered somebody, or that he repeatedly assaulted him. I hope therefore that in future only hon. Members who really have any knowledge of an incident will speak.

Mr. Warbey: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Earl Winterton: I am not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, but I will sit down.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not clear from the evidence given by both parties that the Pressman was the first to lay his hand on the hon. Member — [Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] —in that he did, with some violence, catch hold of his arm and shake him in the first incident, and admitted it in evidence; and secondly that he also admitted in evidence that he struck blows against the hon. Member for Mile End in the second incident?

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been following the quotation I made. I will read it out once again. What the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said was:
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End, has outside this

Chamber but in the precincts of this House, been twice physically assaulted and battered."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 19th December, 1946; Vol 435, C.2245.]
That is not a statement of fact. Anyone who reads the Report can see that. Equally, the statement made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that there had been a repeated assault, was also incorrect. My point was that any person with any sense of fairness would realise that it is inadvisable that charges should be made against people outside this House by hon. Members, unless they themselves were actually witnesses of the incident in question.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: Very shortly, the position was this. About a quarter to seven on this particular day, 19th December, I was asked by one or two of my hon. Friends whether it would be a breach of Privilege if an hon. Member of this House had been assaulted. I said, "Quite obviously it would; I will now go into the Library and find out." I turned up the latest edition of Erskine May and found that it was, and also that it had to be reported to the House at once, interrupting any other Business that might be on hand. As the House will remember, a Division was called, and I said that I should like to raise this matter immediately the Division was over. You, Mr. Speaker, said, "Certainly," and then called me. I was told, as I said in my statement, that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) had been twice involved in brawls. I saw his face. I assure the House, and the noble Lord, that it was on the very best information at my disposal, and at the very earliest possible time, that I said what I did say. Perhaps I ought to explain that maybe the noble Lord does not know the difference between assault and battery. Assault is merely a threat; battery is when the person is touched. As the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) has pointed out, and has drawn the noble Lord's attention to what the Report says, the first actual touching on the body of one by another was by Mr. Lucy, and that is battery and assault, and that is exactly what I alleged in my statement. I apologise to Mr. Lucy; I have never met him in my life and I have no prejudice in the matter: I was trying to keep the Privilege of the House inviolate.

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that at this moment, in this country, there are millions of people out of employment because of the coal situation? Is it not time we turned to that subject?

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: I shall only take up half a minute, but as the noble Lord did refer to me, I think I ought to say a word. I am perfectly prepared to apologise for having omitted the word "allegedly '' before the word "guilty." I would, however point out to the noble Lord that I only intervened secondarily in order to correct the misapprehension which seemed to have arisen in the mind of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), that two hon. Members of this House were involved.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: I must confess that, as a comparatively new Member of this House, I am rather astonished at the manner in which this affair has been dealt with. We have had speeches from the party leaders, the leader of our Party, the leader of the Opposition Party, the leader of the Liberal Party, and a representative of the Independents, and there seems to be a kind of feeling in the House that now we ought to close down the discussion.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must say that I am astonished at the levity with which an affair of this importance is being regarded. Since I have been in this House we have discussed matters of tremendous international and national significance, but I do not think there is one issue which has caused me so much anxiety, so much strain, and so much uncertainty as has this particular issue.[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] It is an issue in which 639 hon. Members of this House are called upon to sit on judgment, not only upon a stranger but also upon one of their own colleagues. They are called upon to sit in judgment in circumstances in which there is a dispute about the facts, and where the facts are uncertain and incomplete. They are called upon, moreover, in respect of one of the two parties concerned, to pass upon him a stricture and a condemnation of the severest kind.
It has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that we should just vote upon

this matter, and have done with it. We cannot have done with it in that fashion. Here we are going to say that an hon. Member of this House has been guilty of gross contempt. We are going to pass a Motion to that effect. The passing of that Motion attaches to that hon. Member, as well as to the other party concerned, a stigma which will last with them all their lives, a stigma which is bound to affect their future careers. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to plead that no penalties should be inflicted from outside upon Mr. Lucy, but we cannot bring these matters to an end here. We must consider, if we are to consider this properly, what will be the consequences not only on the Press career of Mr. Lucy, but also on the political career of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). What will be his political future? I must say that, it I am called upon to go into the Division Lobby at the end of this discussion, and cast my vote in such a way as to put a stigma upon two people, I feel hound to consider this matter very seriously and deeply indeed. Let me say that I hope no hon. Member will cast a vote, upon this question unless he has read every word of this Report, and every word of the evidence. Unless he has done so he is not entitled to make a judgment on this question.
Let us be clear —and I am sorry to take up the time of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe it has to be done in fairness to those concerned. Let us be clear that what we are asked to do is to say that Mr. Lucy was guilty of a contempt, and that the hon. Member for Mile End was guilty of a gross contempt. We are asked to make a sharp discrimination —an exceedingly sharp discrimination, because that word "gross" is a word of considerable strength and emphasis; it means a good deal more than "grave" or "serious" when we say that an hon. Member is guilty of a gross contempt. It is a very sharp distinction indeed. Is it right —that is what we have to ask ourselves first of all —that we should make this sharp differentiation between the two parties to this dispute?
If all we had been called upon to say was that they were both guilty of contempt of the House, there need have been no further discussion. Clearly, upon the


undisputed facts of the case, there can be no dispute at all that both parties concerned were guilty of contempt. But we are being asked to go beyond that, and to make this sharp differentiation. On any prima facie consideration of the facts, one might have supposed that if a differentiation were to be made, it might have been made in the other direction. I say that for these reasons, namely, that against the hon. Member for Mile End there was one charge, that he was guilty of offending against the order, dignity and decorum of the House, whereas against Mr. Lucy there are two charges, first that he also was guilty of offending against the order, dignity and decorum of the House, and, secondly, that of molesting a Member in the execution of his duty within the precincts of the House. There are therefore two charges against the one and one charge against the other, and it would need a very large degree of difference in their behavior to be able to reverse the consequences of that order, and to place by far the sharper condemnation upon the Member of this House.

Sir P. Hannon: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Warbey: I am very sorry if hon. Members wish to rush this matter, but we are being asked to pass judgment on this case when the essential facts are in dispute. A normal case of this kind would have been thoroughly threshed out in a court of law. There would have been all the apparatus of the courts of law, with the calling of essential witnesses, and not just two or three. There would have been presentation of the case by counsel, and, as I say, the matter would have been thoroughly threshed out, in an effort to reach some decision on the facts in dispute. Clearly, this could not he done by the Committee of Privileges. Therefore, what did they do? They followed what was the only course open to them —and I do not blame them for this —and concentrated upon those facts about which there was no dispute. In other words, they picked out of the whole picture, certain facts which were not in dispute, leaving out of account those matters which were in dispute between the two parties. Therefore, I say that in seeking to arrive at a correct judgment, by

making a selection of those facts upon which there is agreement, the Committee have not given an entirely correct presentation of what issued from the evidence. I wish to stress two points. Firstly, in only one case does the Committee suggests that there might have been any provocation which resulted in the acts being committed. In paragraph II of the Report, it is stated that:
Mr. Lucy's conduct immediately before Mr. Piratin struck him, was improper, but Your Committee recommend the House to take a lenient view on this as he had received some provocation.
Provocation is admitted in the case of Mr. Lucy although no supporting evidence is given by the Committee to justify admission of provocation in that case. In the case of the hon. Member for Mile End, no question of provocation is admitted at all in the summing up. The question of whether the remarks made by Mr. Lucy might have provoked the hon. Member for Mile End to take the action which he did has not been considered, and it is not reported on in the Committee's summing up. Finally, and this seems to me to he a most astonishing omission from the Committee's summing up, there is no reference whatever to the fact that Mr. Lucy was the first of the two parties, in either of the two incidents, to lay hands upon the body of the other person, and, secondly, that Mr. Lucy struck any blows at all. That is not even mentioned in the summing up, although Mr. Lucy admitted that in the first incident he did lay his hands firmly upon the hon. Member for Mile End and shake him, and in the second instance, he admitted that he struck blows against the hon. Member for Mile End. I suggest, therefore, that the summing up does not give a true picture of the evidence; that even the evidence is insufficient to enable us to arrive at a correct and fair judgment on this issue, and that while it is clear from the undisputed facts that both parties were guilty of contempt, there are insufficient grounds for finding such a severe verdict that the hon. Member for Mile End must be singled out for very severe condemnation.

4.59 P.m.

Mr. Stephen: I think I am entitled to say a few words in connection with this matter. I have been a Member of the House for a long time, and I have taken part in more trouble in the House during these years


than, possibly, any other Member present. I have a great deal of sympathy for the statement made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).I think that a lot of our trouble has arisen because this Motion has been put in this form, instead of the form suggested by the hon. Member for West Fife. I think that the Committee of Privileges acted very fairly in hearing the two folk concerned, but I must confess, after reading the Report, that the Committee gave the event a far greater significance than it ought to have had.
It seems to me that the trouble arose partly because the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) was in a rather irritated state of mind, and possibly because Mr. Lucy, after he had given way, made a humorous remark which was misinterpreted. I think the Committee, in taking account of the evidence, should have come to some such conclusion. I feel that there was no reason for making a differentiation between the two individuals concerned. If, at the beginning of the incident, there was a certain greater responsibility on the hon. Member for Mile End, there was in the second incident a greater responsibility on Mr. Lucy.
I think the Committee would have acted with greater discretion if they had simply come to the conclusion that there had been a certain measure of contempt on the part of the two parties. I think that the acting Leader of the House should have acted more wisely. I also wonder why the Committee did not take account of some more recent history, instead of going back to all the old business. I remember Mr. Amery going across the Floor, at the end of a Debate, and giving the present Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), a black eye; I also remember the present Minister of Fuel and Power going across the Floor, to give Commander Bower a hard blow. These things happen, with no intention of contempt of the House or of being engaged in a brawl, and I think this incident was treated on far too big a scale. I fully agreed with the Leader of the Opposition when he said he hoped that Mr. Lucy's professional career would not be damaged in any way. This incident was something that might have taken place among any one of us. In

our past lives we have been guilty of similar actions for which we might have been called into question. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mile End, and other Members, are anxious to see that Mr. Lucy should not suffer in any way. I regret that in this matter the acting Leader of the House did not put down a Motion in a much simpler form, but I suggest that, protests having been made. we should allow the whole thing to pass.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the conduct of Philip Piratin, Esquire, a Member of the House, and Thomas Daniel Lucy, as found by the Committee in their Report, was a gross violation of the order and decorum of the House; that this House doth agree with the Committee in their opinion that Philip Piratin, Esquire, was guilty of a gross contempt, and Thomas Daniel Lucy of a contempt of the House; and that this House places on record its high displeasure with their conduct and its determination to proceed with the utmost severity against future offenders in like cases.

FUEL AND POWER CUTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. William Whiteley.]

5.7 P.m.

Mr. R.S. Hudson: I think I ought to start by saying that we on this side of the House appreciate the action of the acting Leader of the House in realising what I think everyone outside must realise by now, that the country is facing a situation of unparalleled gravity, and that this honourable House is., accordingly, entitled, at the earliest possible moment, not only to discuss it, but to hear a very much fuller account of the causes that have precipitated it, and the reasons for the lack of foresight and action on the part of His Majesty's Government in preventing it, than we have had up to now.
I think it will probably be common ground on all sides of the House that the experience of years proves that it is essential, if the country is to continue without a breakdown during the winter, to accumulate large stocks of coal during the summer. In the days when coal, as we know, was in ample supply —Members opposite were never tired of telling us that the difficulty was not a shortage of coal, but unemployment among miners —it was always recognised that during


January, February and March the public utility companies, electricity and gas, had to "live on their own fat," that they could not get through the winter unless adequate supplies and stocks of coal had been accumulated during the summer. We all know the difficulties which faced this country during the war, and we all appreciate the difficulties which have faced it since VE-Day. But the fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power and his colleagues in the Government did fail singularly to accumulate anything like adequate stocks during last summer. He, indeed, would be the first to admit it. He admitted it during the Debate in the House on Friday, and in case any hon. Member was not present, or has not read the Debate, I quote what the right hon. Gentleman said:
I will agree that it the stock position had been good in he last three or four months, we could have avoided any difficulties that are likely to emerge in the next few days But the stock position has been bad."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1947; Vol 132; c.2181]
The gravamen of the charge we have to make against the right hon. Gentleman is this —that he was warned repeatedly about the inevitable results of allowing the stock position in the summer to be so bad and yet took no adequate steps to build up those stocks. He refused to admit that the situation was so serious —or I should say that, at one moment, he admitted that it was serious, and, at another, he became optimistic and contradicted the warnings which he had previously given. In spite of knowing, as he must have known, that stocks were perilously low, he made no adequate plans to meet the emergency that was almost bound to arise. What were the warnings that were given to the right hon. Gentleman? The warnings came from all quarters —they came from the industry, from all on this side of the House, and from his predecessor in office, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George). As long ago as 16th June, 1946, the electricity supply companies issued a statement that coal stocks for electricity undertakings stood at a "dangerous level." On 23rd June, the Chairman of the Midland Counties Electric Supply Co. said:
Before the. war, eight weeks' supply —summer or winter —was considered the barest minimum by the gas and electricity supply

industries. There are many companies today with less than two weeks' supply.
That was in June.
The results of a breakdown in coal supply will mean reduced railway operations, fewer bricks, less steel and a blow to the export trade.
On 24th June, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke, speaking from these benches, gave a similar warning. On 13th September, the Preston borough electrical engineer issued a warning:
The coal position is very serious indeed, and unless there is a very material improvement in the coal delivery situation, it may be necessary during the coming winter to reduce supplies.
On 13th September, the Public Relations Committee of the electricity supply companies issued a statement:
Our object is to warn the public of the gravity of the position as we see it. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power is so confident about the coal position, the industry would be glad to be taken into his confidence as to how, when and where the additional coal required will be forthcoming.
Speaking from these benches, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), on 20th November, said:
Ministers must know the magnitude of the dangers which approach us, but their pronouncements alter with irritating inconsistency, from the most pessimistic to the most rosy tints.' — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th NOV., 1947; Vol.430, C, 876.]
If any one wants proof of that, I would ask him to listen to the two statements made by the Minister of Fuel and Power —not at long separated intervals —but in the same month, the month of October. On 8th October, the right hon. Gentleman, in opening the Conference on "Fuel and the Future," is reported as having called for a voluntary cut of ten per cent., in order to avert a breakdown in supplies in the depth of winter. That did not prevent him from saying on 24th October:
Every one knows that there is going to be a serious crisis in the coal industry, except the Minister of Fuel and Power. I want to tell you there is not going to be a crisis in coal, if, by crisis, you mean that industrial organisation is going to be seriously dislocated and that hundreds of factories are going to be closed down.
Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that hundreds of factories are going to be closed down, and that industry is being seriously dislocated at the present time. At least, he refrains from making that


claim.[Interruption.] The country is faced with a state of affairs that transcends mere party points of view. I said that we admit that the right hon. Gentleman was faced with difficulties in the summer in building up stocks of coal. But admitting that there were those difficulties, and knowing the failure to build up stocks, surely the position that was likely to arise this winter could have been foreseen, and, if it had been foreseen, steps could have been taken to deal with it in advance, and plans prepared to deal with all the possible eventualities. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech excused himself on two grounds. First, he said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), that we were consuming coal —let me give the exact quotation:
The consumption of vital commodities in this country —and certainly in the sphere of fuel and power' —
I call the attention of the House to this —
is higher now"—
let the right hon. Gentleman take note —
than at any time in the history of this country
The statement was untrue. It is not higher, and, if he doubts it, I will refer him to the statistics issued by his own Department. He will find that the annual tonnage of coal consumed in Great Britain, including shipments to Northern Ireland, expressed to the nearest millions of tons, was 185 in 1946 as against 196 in 1940; 198 in 1941; 197 in 1942. The first excuse of the right hon. Gentleman does not bear examination for one moment.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): When I made that statement, I expressly stated that I was referring to the peacetime consumption, and not the consumption during the war.

Mr. R.S. Hudson: I will read the whole statement from HANSARD:
I repeat there are 19 million and more persons in this country engaged in gainful employment. The consumption of vital commodities in this country —and certainly in the sphere of fuel and power —is higher now —let the right hon. Gentleman take note —than at Any time in the history of this country".
I am not being unfair, for I am quoting from HANSARD. That is the first excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, as recorded by HANSARD. It is completely without foundation. I turn to the second excuse which the right hon. Gentleman

makes. It is that consumption has gone up unexpectedly. Perhaps I had better quote the exact statement as recorded. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We assumed that with the rising output —and it was a fair assumption —and provided consumption did not rise unduly, we should escape difficulty"—
I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will not challenge that sentence —
estimates that have been presented to me by the Central Electricity Board, which proceeded from 545,000 tons required for the electricity supply to 560,000.…'' — [0FFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1947; Vol.432, c.2171–5.]
—and so on. The right hon. Gentleman implied that it was unreasonable to expect the Government and himself to have anticipated increased consumption, but why? Have not hon. Members opposite and Members of the Government been going up and down the country for the last 12 months saying, "Look how magnificently we have turned over from war to peace; look how many people are employed; look at the output of goods for home consumption "? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have boasted of the increased number of electric fires and other electrical appliances for the house-S hold sold. People do not buy electric fires in order to look at them cold, or to decorate their houses. They buy electric fires because they are afraid their houses will be cold. If the right hon. Gentleman had had any foresight, he would have known that there was bound to be increased consumption. Has his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade never told him there were more electric fires being made? Has the Minister of Supply, who boasted in July of the way in which people were getting to work again in peace time, never told him that if there was reconversion and if there were more people employed, the consumption of power would be bound to go up? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his excuses today, mentioned the fact that owing to the cessation of the blackout, the reconversion of industry, and the larger number of people at work in this country, consumption has gone up. Of course, it has, and it was to be foreseen. The gravamen of our charge today is that the right hon. Gentleman either did not foresee, or if he did foresee it, took no adequate steps to meet it.
I go further. The right hon. Gentleman talks about an increased consumption of


electricity as though that were the whole of the trouble. Far from it. It was not only increased consumption; it was not only that in certain weeks the actual consumption of coal by the electricity companies rose above the average figure of 557,000 tons given by the Central Electricity Board. That was not the only trouble If it had been, and there had been adequate stocks, we should not have been in this mess. The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman failed consistently throughout the summer and the winter to provide adequate supplies of coal, or even the minimum supplies of coal that were required. Let me give some figures, because it is as well that the country should realise where the blame for this state of affairs truly lies. I apologise to the House for dealing at length with this point, but it is important, because it meets and rebuts the excuse made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it was wise of him to send out to have this checked by his officials. It will be interesting to see whether they are able to rebut it.
Electricity, coal and gas coal are what is known as "programmed." Estimates are given in April for the next six months to October, and later in the summer estimates are made for the six months October to April. Those estimates are furnished by the electricity and gas industries to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that. Electricity estimates given in May, 1946, for the six summer months showed that, to build up a stock of only 4.3 weeks consumption —I pause to remind the House that in peacetime a minimum of eight weeks in the winter was regarded as necessary for real safety —to build up only 4.3 weeks supply at the end of the summer, it would be necessary to deliver to the electricity industry 507,000 tons of coal a week. It was estimated then that, by reason of the increasing demand in the summer and the anticipated increasing demand in the winter —because even though the Minister did not realise there was likely to be an increased demand, the electricity industry and the companies budgeted for an increased demand —the new programme, translated into what would be required as weekly deliveries to the, electricity industry, would collie to 559,000 tons a week during the winter. Of the 507,000 tons a week in the summer required to build up a stock of 4.3 weeks

supply, in only four weeks out of 26 weeks was this delivery surpassed. In all the other 22 weeks, deliveries ranged from 372,000 to 435,000 tons, against a requirement of 507,000 tons.
The House will realise, and the right hon. Gentleman could or should have known from the statistics available in his Department, that all through the summer the deliveries of coal to build up the 4.3 weeks stock were falling short. The right hon. Gentleman and his officials could not have been under any illusion as to what the country would be faced with this winter. Therefore, we started the winter of 1946, on 1st October, with only 3.6 weeks coal supplies in stock, but since 1st October —this was a point also which the right hon. Gentleman talked about —the increased demand by the electricity industry rose from 559,00o tons to 575,000 tons, then to 600,000 tons, and finally to 700,00o tons a week. But the Minister was told at the beginning of the winter that the electricity industry would require 559,000 tons a week, and only in five weeks out of 16 to date has this delivery been exceeded, and in the remaining weeks it has been from 425,000 tons to 557,000. The House and the country will realise that not only during 22 weeks out of 26 weeks in the summer was coal short delivered to build up stocks, but also that, since October, in only five weeks has the estimated minimum requirement of the electricity industry been met.
It is clear, therefore, that this excuse which the right hon. Gentleman put forward on Friday, that the crisis has come about as a result of an unexpected demand since October, will not bear examination for one moment. The fact of the matter is that even had there not been this bad weather, it is almost certain from the figures I have given that a similar crisis to that with which we are faced today would have come upon us some time either at the end of this month, or early in March. The right hon. Gentleman and many of his friends and his supporters in the Press are trying to blame this on the weather. This is not the first severe winter we have experienced in our history, but it is the first winter that has brought us to disaster. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman knew from the intake figures of the electricity industry, that a crisis was imminent. The particular week in which it was going to break does not matter.
What has the right hon. Gentleman done to meet this crisis? His first plan was the plan of a voluntary cut. That failed, and then we had the plan of allocations. Thirdly, we had the plan associated with the name of the President of the Board of Trade, which was called realistic allocations. Now we come to the present plan. I should like the House to recall for one moment the history of this plan. Last Thursday the acting Leader of the House poured scorn on a request from this side of the House for a Debate on coal. He talked about the new-found zeal of the Opposition, and but for the insistence of Members on this side of the House arising out of a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) we should not have had the Debate last Friday. What I should like one of the right hon. Gentlemen who is to reply to tell us is whether on Thursday, at 3.30 p.m., when the acting Leader of the House of Commons was resisting our demand, he was aware of the critical position that faced the industry of this country.
The prime Minister in his statement today in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that the Government only came to their decision on Friday morning. They may only have come to their decision on Friday morning, but what I should like to know is, what was the advice given by the Central Electricity Board and by the Electricity Commissioners? Was it only on Thursday night that the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board told the right hon. Gentleman how desperately serious the position was? If, on the contrary, it was known to members of the Government on Wednesday, how can the right hon. Gentleman account for what I can only describe as the levity with which the acting Leader of the House dealt on Thursday with the request for a Debate?
I come now to the behaviour of the Minister of Fuel and Power himself. We learnt to our surprise, and I am sure too, the general surprise, that when my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prestcott) had written to the Minister of Fuel and Power saying that he had got the Adjournment for Friday, and proposed raising this matter, the Minister attached so little importance to it that he was not even going to bother to be

present. It was only after considerable urging by this side of the House that he consented to attend on Friday. When he did come, what did he do? One is entitled to assume that, but for the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen in calling the Minister's attention to this Debate on the Adjournment, this vital announcement, affecting the whole country, would have been made in some hole and corner way, and not to this House.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman want to wait as long as he did on Friday to announce the details? It is perfectly true that according to the Rules of the House it was for the hon. Member for Darwen to open the Debate, which he did. However, there was nothing to stop the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power getting up and saying, "I have a serious announcement to make to the House. Here it is." Instead, what did the right hon. Gentleman do? Again I turn to HANSARD. It was 2.31 before the right hon. Gentleman got up to speak. He went through a long rigmarole attacking my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and it was not until 3.10 that he disclosed to the House this vital information and the decision of the Government, which the Prime Minister told us today had been reached on Friday morning. Why did he want to wait? Quite obviously because he did not want to face a full discussion. I venture to suggest that it was gross contempt of the High Court of Parliament, but it compares with the other things which he has done. I now pass to the present plan. I should like to know what consultations the Government had with the people who are mainly concerned in carrying out this plan.

Mr. Wyatt: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes to the present plan, would he tell the House how he would raise the coal stocks?

Mr.R. S. Hudson: At a more appropriate moment. It so happens that my job now is to be the interrogator, not to be interrogated.[Interruption.] I am very glad indeed that hon. Members opposite dislike so intensely the interrogation I am making. What I want to know about this plan is: Was the industry consulted? After all, it is not the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners who have actually the detailed job of


translating this plan into action but the power companies. I have information on the subject, and I give this information, which has reached me, as an illustration of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to make any plans beforehand.
I said earlier that they ought to have known that an emergency of this kind was likely to come about. One would have thought that ordinary prudence would have dictated that they should make preparations beforehand. They should have anticipated and foreseen the possibility of increased consumption, and laid their plans accordingly. They should have worked out some scheme to come into operation either in October, November, or December as the case might be, according to the extra consumption that was anticipated. As I said, one would have thought common prudence, owing to the low stocks of coal in the country, would have compelled them to make some plans to ensure that what stocks there were diverted to electricity rather than to other industries. One would have imagined that, having been warned on all sides that an emergency, with which we are now faced, was if not probable at all events possible, plans to meet this emergency would have been worked out beforehand. So that all that would be required would be to put them into immediate operation.
My information is that so far from that being the case, in fact, on the operating level —that is to say the level of the unfortunate engineers and so forth who have actually to run the generating stations —the first intimation they got was on Friday evening through the Press. It was not until Saturday morning that the power companies, who, after all, own the generating plants with I believe one exception, were called in and told, "Here is the Minister's decision. What are you going to do about it? How are you going to translate it into effect?"
Quite clearly it was impossible to take any effective action even to translate the Government's decision into effect, unless one knew which were the industries and the essential services that were to be preserved in operation. That information was not available until the Minister met a Press conference on Saturday afternoon, and the companies concerned were not, in fact, informed until after nine o'clock on

Saturday night, because the full list was not available even to the B.B.C., who were anxious to broadcast it if they could. Can anyone conceive a greater dereliction of duty first to have let us get into this mess, and secondly to have made no preparations at all for meeting it?
I pass over what is going to happen in the future, or how long it is going to last; that will be bad enough when we have to meet it. The main thing we have to face today is that, although planning may be all right, if we want to plan then, for Heaven's sake, have a plan to meet the different emergencies. What this planning Government has done is to interfere with private plans to get on with industry, and, as far as their own duty was concerned, not merely to fail to make plans for an emergency, but also to refuse to believe that an emergency was likely to arise.

5.42 P.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R.S. Hudson) has, quite properly, claimed the right of the Opposition to interrogate the Government, and it is the Government's responsibility to answer. Last Friday, in the course of a brief Debate, hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite interrogated the Government. Within the recollection of hon. Members who were present, they interrogated the Government in violent and abusive tones. What did they expect? If, as apparently was the case, the Opposition got more than they bargained for, they must not complain. This afternoon, however, the right hon. Gentleman has interrogated the Government in moderate terms, and I shall respond by addressing myself to these interrogations in language as temperate as the circumstances demand.
The last thing I would seek to do is to minimise the gravity of the situation. However brief in duration this disturbance may be, it is bound, in the very nature of the case, to impair our industrial economy at any rate to some extent, and that we are all anxious to avoid. Let us address ourselves to the vital and integral elements of the situation with which we have been confronted, not for the last few weeks, the last few months, or, for that matter, since the advent of this Government, but for several years past. The right hon. Gentleman directed the attention of the House to


the inadequate stock position. That is fundamental, and it is the pivot on which the whole of our economic system must turn. But this inadequate stock position is by no means new. The inadequacy of our coal stocks as a cardinal factor in relation to our national economy began to emerge after the French disaster in the war in 1940. No one is more conversant with that fact than the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). What happened on that occasion? A vast amount of coal, produced in this country and designed for French operations, military and civil, was held hack. There was obviously no purpose in sending the coal to France in view of the collapse.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was the opinion of the experts at the time —let there be no mistake.

Mr. Churchill: It was also the opinion of some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has just confirmed what I have stated by saying that it was also the opinion of some of my colleagues who were then in the Coalition Government, so we are on common ground. Obviously, the Coalition Government were blameless in the matter, but what emerged from that situation? Men were allowed to drift from the pits to go into the Forces and into munition factories, and elsewhere, and the pits were denuded of the lusty, vigorous labour that is so essential in coal production. Then, when coal stocks had dwindled, as they were bound to in the circumstances, because of excessive consumption, men were sought for but were not to be found. The Government of the day, quite rightly, refused to bring men back from the Forces except in small numbers, and men themselves were averse from being directed back into the pits from the munition factories where they had gone. At that time the wage situation in the coalfields was far from satisfactory. How often in this House did we hear the argument, "How can you expect men earning £10 a week in munitions to come back into the pits for £3 or £4 a week? "So, the Bevin boys were brought in. Although willing to assist to increase the production of coal, they were unsuited to the pits, they naturally became discontented, and indeed they created more trouble than they were worth.
So towards the end of the war we had emerging a situation of inadequate stocks accompanied by dwindling manpower. Those were the twin features of the situation. The Labour Government were returned and had to grapple with that situation. It was impossible, in spite of intense propaganda and exhortation and, over and above that, the Essential Work Order which was then in operation, to retain men in the pits. On every kind of pretext they were leaving. Medical certificates were granted in great volume. When I came to the Ministry of Fuel and Power the number of persons on tit:, colliery books was over 700,000, but in the course of a few months it had dwindled to 694,000. That was not the worst of it. The trouble was that we were left with many men who were aged —more than 40 per cent. of the men in the pits at the time were over 45 years of age and were tired out.
That was the situation facing us. So we sought to deal with the situation and prepared a plan. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) asked on Friday whether we had a plan. I reminded him of our plan, and I repeat it now. Our plan was to create the right atmosphere in the mining industry to induce men to come in willingly—not under direction—particularly as we knew that sooner or later we should have to abandon the Essential Work Order, because one cannot go on directing miners if one does not direct other classes of workers. That was our plan. I claim that we succeeded, at any rate, so far as that plan was concerned, because in spite of the unwillingness, the resistance and the reluctance of the men to come in, we attracted 76,000 men and boys into the industry in 1946. Does any one pretend that that was due to exhortations alone? Of course not It was attributable—I ask hon. Members to note this because it is so vital in this matter of production—to the new atmosphere that was emerging because the men were being assured of reforms for which they had long asked.

Major Guy Lloyd: rose —

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot give way. Many reforms still remain to be conceded, and I want to tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that unless reforms for the miners in this unattractive industry are


conceded, we shall not get the volume of coal which is essential.
That was the situation. The right hon. Member for Southport has now told the House what is the gravamen of the charge against us—inadequate stocks. Is it any use pretending one can build up stocks unless one has the men to produce the stocks? There is something even more difficult—one may have the men but one may not have the right men. There is something more to be added. It is that we must have the right organisation in the pits. There has been far too much talk of introducing thousands of additional men into the pits without regard to the conditions in the pits. It has been known that the mines of this country require large-scale and long-term reorganisation, but it cannot be done in 18 months. Indeed, I have to tell hon. Members that the National Coal Board may find themselves in this difficulty—they may have to arrest their long-term plan in order to speed up production in the short run. They are addressing themselves to that subject. But will hon. Members understand that the National Coal Board have only taken over in recent months?
If I am told—I have no doubt that is the intention—that there has been Government control for quite a long time, that is perfectly true, but what kind of Government control? Government control that means that the Government or some corporation run the mines of the country? Nothing of the sort. The owners were in possession; the mine managers were under their direction. Great difficulties have been encountered in this matter. I do not desire to dilate on these matters which by now are familiar to hon. Members, but I am bound to point out that it is no use pretending that stocks can be built up to a higher level unless we have not only the volume of labour but the right kind of labour and the right kind of organisation. I have said in the country—I will not seek to deny that I have made the statement over and over again, and I stand by it—that if we had 700,000 willing and able miners in the pits and if we had the right organisation, we could get all the coal we want. I am fortified in that statement by experts from the mining industry such as the President of the Yorkshire Miners' Association and others who were associated with the other side of the in-

dustry We have to get those conditions, and it has been most difficult to secure those conditions in the last 18 months.
Now I come to the question of the coal stocks at our disposal—and I am stating the facts and no more and no less. At the beginning of the coal year in 1946— for the benefit of hon. Members, the coal year is not a calendar year but begins on 1st May—all I had was 6,800,000 in stock. That was not a Government dump. That represented distributed stocks of coal for household, gas, electricity and industrial purposes. It was because of the inadequacy of that stock position that I came to the House in June, a few weeks later, and presented what was known as the "Coal Budget." Hon. Members will recall the occasion when I disclosed the serious gap between production and estimated consumption. It amounted to rip million tons. I also disclosed to the House that we intended to bridge at least five million tons of that gap by oil conversion, by stepping up opencast production and by adopting other devices. The right hon. Member for Southport says that no warnings were given. I would remind him of the statements I made in that coal budget speech, which is available to hon. Members.
We built up that stock position from 6,800,000 tons at the beginning of May to almost 11 million tons at the beginning of the coal winter in October in spite of the fact that the miners—I will certainly make no complaint of this—had more and, I hope, better holidays in 1946 than ever in their history. They were entitled to it, but every week of holiday meant less production, and I confessed to the House that I was apprehensive about the dwindling production due to the extended holidays. At the same time, I hoped that the recuperation which resulted from those holidays would lead to higher production later on, and I was right in that assumption, because we started with almost 11 million tons of stock in October and, in spite of rising consumption, we held our ground to the end of the year. Why? Because the miners put their backs into it and produced more, and they were producing more coal by 150,000 tons and sometimes 200,000 tons a week with fewer men than they had done in the same period in the previous year. I say to hon. Members that, in all the circumstances, that plan succeeded. It was an


achievement. But the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to say that I should have been far from satisfied with the position. That is his contention. I agree unreservedly.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: No, I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Shinwell: I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said—and this was the gravamen of the charge—that I had not taken adequate steps to build up the stock position in advance. Therefore, he must have suspected that I must have been satisfied with the position. Well, I was not satisfied with the position; on the contrary, I repeated my warnings in almost every speech I made.[HON. MEMBERS:"NO"] If hon. Members want me to put in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the reports of the speeches I made week after week at miners' gatherings, exhorting them to produce more, I should be very glad to do so, but I am afraid it would rather overwhelm them. But when we came to October, the beginning of the coal winter, with about 11 million tons of stock, in view of the estimated consumption I made a speech, of which the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, at the Fuel Efficiency Conference. If hon. Members will bear with me, in the circumstances, I think I am entitled to quote what I said. It will be noted that this was a conference designed to promote fuel efficiency. We were concerned with getting more manpower, stepping up the output, promoting economy measures and, so far as it was possible, inducing consumers of coal to exercise proper efficiency in the use of fuel. I was referring to a shortage of manpower and materials and I said:
Meanwhile, we cannot escape the difficulties of transition from war to peace.… We have to address ourselves to the problem of how we can get through the coming winter, without dislocation of our national life—how we are to avoid a shortage of domestic fuel and the curtailment of industrial production.
Then I said:
Making every allowance for possible increases in production, and after arranging to reduce our distributed stocks to the, lowest limit that we dare, we run a very grave danger of breakdown. In the public utilities, there is one additional danger arising from lack of plant.
Then I went on to say:
We must seek for a reduction in consumption. The alternatives are to step-up at once our efforts to economise, or to face, in the

depths of the coming winter, a breakdown in supplies.… I am obliged to set a target for this effort, and to ask for an all-round voluntary saving in consumption of at least so per cent. This saving of 10 per cent. is needed in coal, gas and electricity, and must apply to all consumers, not only in industry, but al3o in the home and in public and commercial undertakings.
Then I added this:
At the moment it is clear that although production is rising, consumption is outstripping it by far.
There was a warning if ever there was one.[An HON. MEMBER: "When was it? "] On 8th October. That was at the beginning of the coal winter. The right hon. Gentleman asked why nothing was done to safeguard the position in view of dwindling production and rising consumption. I understand that the charge against the Government is this—it has been made by the Press, and about the Press I will not comment at this stage; perhaps on a future occasion I may be allowed a little latitude on another platform on that very interesting topic, but, for the moment, I say nothing. However, it has been suggested in the Press, in speeches of hon. Members last Friday and in the right hon. Gentleman's speech today, that we should have rationed, should have prepared a scheme long before now. In face of the change in the atmosphere in the industry, and in face of estimates we received from the public utility undertakings' experts, we were justified in proceeding on the assumption that if we could secure economies—and we were seeking to promote economies—and with the rising trend in production during the winter, we could manage to scrape through. But suppose we had formulated a rationing scheme at that time, what kind of scheme would it have been? It would have been, in the circumstances, the fuel allocation scheme that the Government have just embarked upon. That is the only kind of rationing scheme you can have if there is a shortfall in a particular commodity and you have to spread it over a great field. Obviously, if there is inadequacy, some people have to go short, and it would have meant that at that time, in the summer and in the early winter, a rationing scheme which would have led to short time in almost every industry.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: And unemployment.

Mr. Shinwell: Unemployment, I agree, and impeding our export efforts which were vital at that time. Over and above that, if we had adopted such a scheme at that time, and if by chance we had avoided this severe spell during the winter, we should have been told that it was a mistake to adopt a scheme of that kind promoting intermittent employment when all the facts were against it. If it comes to a question of rationing, I am bound to say this: the Coalition Government—I excuse them for not doing what some asked they should do—could have adopted a rationing scheme in 1942. We might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Probably they had very good reasons. I can tell one reason. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this question of rationing, particularly of electricity and gas, has obsessed my mind almost from the time I went to the Department, but there are practical difficulties in the way, one being this: we have to be exceedingly careful that we do not promote too much austerity. The right hon. Member for Woodford would have had something to say about that, and I can imagine what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if we had promoted a rationing scheme in the autumn. He would have said: "After six years of war, to give the people of the country more austerity!"
Now I come to the question of consumption. I listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman's statistical observation on this matter. I can only give him the statistics that are derived from expert accumulation. It does not matter which Government happen to be in power, they have to rely on expert opinion and on estimates provided by experts. The fact is that I have consulted the experts, the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. When the electricity undertakings, both municipal and private, seek guidance, they do not come to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. They go to the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board. They have furnished estimates, and I ask the House to note what they were. In the summer, the original estimate for taking us through was 417,000 tons a week. The estimates for the whole of the winter were 575,000 tons a week, compared with 529,000 tons in the winter of 1945–6.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we have the date?

Mr. Shinwell: I have given the date.

Mr. Pickthorn: The date when the estimate was made?

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry; I cannot give that actual date.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The basis.

Mr. Shinwell: I am asked about the basis of the estimate.I am not in a position to say how the technical experts arrived at these estimates, except on the assumption that a certain amount of electricity would be used by industrial undertakings and a certain amount by domestic consumers. I expect they have great difficulties in arriving at any conclusion about the matter. I can imagine what difficulties they have, because of my difficulty in arriving at a conclusion.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I quoted the figure given to me of 507,000 tons per week in the summer. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the figure of 417,000 tons per week. I think probably I had in mind consumption, and what he meant was stocking up.

Mr. Shinwell: It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is not merely an estimate based on the actual consumption during a given period, but for increasing the stock. But it does not affect the position.

Mr. Hudson: It does.

Mr. Shinwell: Up to Christmas, 1946, it was expected that we would consume 557,000 tons a week. I have already given the estimate for the whole winter of 575,000 tons per week, but up to Christmas it was 557,000 tons. These estimates had to be revised in November, and we discovered that they wanted 648,000 tons a week to the end of January, 1947. That was a vast difference. Actual consumption rose in the summer of 1946 from 474,000 tons in May, to 513,000 tons in October. It had risen to 584,000 tons in November, and by the week before Christmas there was an increase of 140,000 tons more than in the corresponding week of 1945. The highest point was the week ended 31st January, 1947, when it was 727,000 tons, as compared with 576,000 tons a year before—an increase of 26 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman may say


that we ought to have anticipated this rise in consumption. I quoted from my speech at the Fuel Efficiency Conference. We expected that the jump would be high, but did not expect that it would be so high.
Now I come to the question of a plan. As I have reminded hon. Members, at the Fuel Efficiency Conference I asked for a voluntary saving of 10 per cent., but, in the course of a few weeks it was clear that we were not going to get that saving. So we decided to adopt other measures—

Mr. R.S. Hudson: To improvise?

Mr. Shinwell: Not to improvise; the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We decided to adopt a scheme which would mean a reduction not only in solid fuel, but in electricity and gas. We were in course of preparing the scheme, and the intention was to put it into operation on 1st December, 1946, but the employers did not consider that it went far enough. As a result, the scheme had to be revised. Therefore there was delay, and it could not come into operation on 1st December. Then the intention was to introduce it on 1st January, but eventually, because of the difficulties which emerged—all kinds of industrial organisations querying the plan itself—it was decided that it should operate from 20th January. That was the fuel allocation plan. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that one can have a plan without consulting anyone.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman did not consult them—

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has made an observation that we did not consult them—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: —in time.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman says we did not consult them in time. The right hon. Gentleman is quite unaware of the facts. There is an Advisory joint Production Council associated with the Board of Trade which is in almost continuous session. It offers advice and guidance to the Board of Trade and, no doubt, to other Departments concerned in production matters of this kind. The intention was to put this plan into operation. On Friday the right hon. Member for Warwick and Learning-ton referred to the "gravest disaster in the last 20 years." He did so before I

had made my statement on the present position. He made the statement about it being the gravest disaster for 20 years on the basis of the fuel allocation plan, which meant short time in certain industries. I challenge hon. Members opposite, I challenge the right hon. Member for Woodford, if he is going to reply, to say whether it is possible to put any plan into operation, provided the stocks are inadequate, that does not lead to short time.

Mr. Churchill: I hope to be able to say a few words in the course of the evening's discussion. The gravamen of the charge the right hon. Gentleman has to meet is not the general difficulties of the coal situation, but his precise conduct in not having a practical plan for dealing with the electricity supplies of the country when a serious emergency arose.

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have the highest respect, and a great admiration, for his qualities, but honestly I am bound to say that that is about the weakest observation that has ever fallen from his lips.[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] Hon. Members are well aware that if I am challenged I respond. I am asked to answer Notice what the right hon. Gentleman says—he cannot help that—the stock position, the manpower position, that is in the past—the gravamen of the charge is that we did not prepare a considered plan in view of the increasing consumption of electricity.

Mr. Churchill: No, I did not say that. I said, in view of the possibility of an emergency arising through weather conditions— [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —in view of an emergency arising. I do not think that that varies my statement at all. Obviously, an emergency would be most likely to arise through a change in the weather.

Mr. Shinwell: If it is possible, I should like to clarify this. As hon. Members are aware, it was intended that the fuel allocation plan, agreed to by the industrialists and the trade unions on the National Joint Advisory Production Council, should come into operation on 20th January. Even with the best will in the world, that plan would have led to some short time in industry. Before the scheme could come


into operation this country was struck by a blizzard unexampled for the last 50 years.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Shinwell: I can tell hon. Members that we have consulted the experts on this subject, and we are informed that not only as regards severity, but as regards universality, this is the worst blizzard since 1894— [Interruption.] Hon. Members can challenge that if they like. If they like the winter they can have it. I can assure them that the sooner we escape from it the better it will be for all concerned. The general severity of the weather broke before this scheme could come into operation. Obviously it had a profound effect on the whole situation. What has been the effect of the weather? We have had ships held up in the North, as the Prime Minister told the House when he made his factual statement in reply to the right. hon. Gentleman. The electricity and gas undertakings in the London area, for the most part, depend on 'seaborne coal coming round from the Tyne. Blyth was blocked, Seaham Harbour was blocked, and is still blocked, ships could not get out. The Tyne was invisible for miles. Skippers of vessels refused to take their ships out. Many of them are flat-bottomed craft which could not be taken to sea, and we have had great difficulty in that regard. They are still held up. Unfortunately, my latest information on the subject is that up to 12 noon yesterday only six colliers had arrived in the Thames. I am bound to confess that that is a rather serious position, and this morning there was fog in the Thames, and there are greater difficulties.

Mr. Pickthorn: rose—

Mr. Shinwell: I am hoping—

Mr. Pickthorn: I thought that when the right hon. Gentleman was challenged, he responded.

Mr. Shinwell: —that the weather conditions will improve and enable us to keep the electricity stations in the London area—

Mr. Churchill: For the information of the House, could the right hon. Gentleman state what is the practical difficulty which prevents the ships from leaving the port of Blyth, or the Tyne? What is the physical difficulty?

Mr. Shinwell: One of the difficulties is the severe weather. I queried that myself, and indeed we have asked whether the Admiralty could assist us in the matter.

Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to have known that months ago.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the actual position as regards the electricity undertakings in the London area? We are concentrating on the eight main stations, the largest stations and we require to provide for a consumption of 18,000 tons daily at those stations. The average stock at the present time, as the Prime Minister told the House, is about 6½ days—some have to days' stock, some 3½. If we can hold down consumption for four or five days, perhaps a week at most, and build up the stock pile —get another week out of it—in addition to the stocks available to the undertakings at the present time, we can get through, and that is what our aim is.
I come finally to the charge made against me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we did not last Friday acquaint the House early enough about this scheme to enable the House to debate it.

Mr. Churchill: We would not have been debating it at all if we had not asked for it.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate, and I will tell hon. Members why. To begin with, the reason for last Friday's Debate was because the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) had intimated that he would raise the Lancashire position on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Southport said that I had told the hon. Member for Darwen that I would not be present. The reason was, as the hon. Member knew, that as it was a question affecting industry, I had told him that I was not responsible for the actual allocation, and that he must go to the Department concerned.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is it not a fact that I twice wrote to the right hon Gentleman and spoke to him twice about the matter, that I indicated that I should have to raise a matter affecting his administration over a long period, that he was vitally concerned, and that I requested him particularly to be in his place?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not intend to ride off on the fact that I was actually in my place, in view of what transpired, but when the hon. Gentleman spoke to me, and after I had read his letters, I came to the conclusion that it was not a matter for my Department, and I advised him to go to the appropriate Department.

Mr. Prescott: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: Let us consider the chronology of the situation that emerged last week. On Wednesday we were informed that the situation was serious in respect of the stock position. Because of the weather the ships were not coming round. We were trying to get coal in by rail from South Wales to Battersea Power Station and to others. Ships were held up in the Bristol Channel and could not come round with the usual stock. Therefore we decided that drastic action would require to be taken. We considered that matter on Thursday, but in view of statements made to us about a possible clearing up of the weather situation in the north—55 ships had been held up the previous night, 20 had got away—we considered that we might wait a little while, to see if sufficient stocks would come in.
I put the matter frankly before the House, and will hon. Members please understand that we do not take action of that kind without consulting the experts in the electricity undertakings? The right hon. Gentleman said that we have not consulted the electricity undertakings. We always consult the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. They speak for the undertakings, as far as they can. I know there have been some representatives of electricity undertakings who have spoken during the last couple of days and said that the scheme is unworkable. Some have even gone so far as to say that they would not work it. I think they are a little more subdued now than they were. On Friday we came to the final decision that this scheme must be put into operation.

Mr. Prescott: At what time?

Mr. Shinwell: In the morning. If it is of any advantage to the hon. Gentleman, it was in the morning before 12 o'clock.

Mr. Prescott: Before I spoke.

Mr. Shinwell: Hon. Members who were present last Friday will recall that the hon.

Member for Darwen was taking advantage, quite properly, of the Adjournment Motion when I arrived in the House. The Debate had begun. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) had intimated the previous day that this was an urgent matter, the general position was urgent, and he intended to speak. Naturally, I wanted to hear what the House had to say. Then the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington leapt to his feet and traduced me in the most vile fashion for which, of course, I readily forgive him. As a result, I had to reply to what he said. I could not allow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as it was an argument, to go by default. People would have said that I was yellow if I had failed to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I referred immediately to what he had said about a grave situation. I said this to him, and HANSARD will verify what I am saying:
I shall have something to say in a few moments about a grave crisis."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1947; Vol.432, c.2177.]
I also said that in all the circumstances, in view of the emergency which had been thrust upon us at the last moment, in view of the severity of weather conditions, and the inability to get stocks at the last moment, we had no alternative but to take the action we took.

Mr. Eden: I would like to say a few words on this subject. I would only say that if the right hon. Gentleman had made an intimation to me, to my right hon. Friends, or to the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that he had a statement of importance to make, we on this side of the House would have been only too glad to hear it before passing to a general discussion.

Mr. Shinwell: Well, I will not join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. It may well be that instead of having a general Debate I could have intervened and said, "I have a grave statement to make." But the hon. Member for Darwen and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke had already intervened.[Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] Also the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) had raised a vital issue, and in those circumstances we had a general Debate. Finally, the right hon. Member for Southport tells us that what we ought to have done in face


of that grave emergency was to have had detailed discussions with the people concerned, with the industrial undertakings, the newspapers and with everybody concerned in this cut. That is what he argued. That was his case. I say we have—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I never mentioned the word "newspapers." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more accurate in his statements.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. He did not mention newspapers, but he referred to those who were affected by the cuts and, as certain periodicals are affected by the cuts, I included them in my general statement. At any rate, it would have been a dereliction of duty if we had not responded to the emergency of the situation and acted accordingly. That we did. I have dealt with the stock position and the manpower position. I say to the House that it may well be that although this is a grave crisis in our national life, that although our industrial economy is imperilled, it may prove to be a blessing in disguise because it will focus the attention of all the people in this country on our vulnerability—not the vulnerability of the Government, but the vulnerability of this country—unless we can promote in the mining industry the atmosphere that will bring in willing men to produce the coal. That is what we are endeavouring to do. That is why we promoted nationalisation. Out of that new beginning we hope to produce a chapter without blemish in the history of this country.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am sure that the country will be glad that the Government acceded to our request this afternoon for this Debate. I regret that there should be these political challenges and counter-challenges across the Floor of the House. There can be no doubt that the country is passing through a grave crisis. From the attitude which has been adopted during this Debate one would think that hon. and right hon. Members have forgotten that here, in midwinter, a great number of industries have stopped work, and that, there are, without exaggeration, some millions of people out of work In addition, many householders are experiencing difficulty. I hope that

before the end of this Debate we shall get a more definite statement of the position and of the measures that will be taken to meet the difficulties, as well as an estimate of how long it will be before we get back to normality.
The main portion of the Minister's speech was confined to the measures taken for the production of coal. That is quite proper, because he is the Minister responsible. I go a long way in agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman's recital of the history which has led up to our present position. I mentioned some figures as recently as last Friday. There is not the slightest doubt that the production of coal in this country had been decreasing steadily before the war broke out in 1939. At that time there were 800,000 miners at work. By May, 1940, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, in spite of protests which he and I made at that time—we were pretty nearly lone voices—the figures were allowed to fall until there were only about 740,000 miners at work. Down went the figures until, at the end of 1940, there were only about 700,000 people at work. Furthermore, those who were at work were getting older; new and younger men were riot entering the industry, and that position has continued until the introduction of that very bad scheme of the Bevin boys.
I admit that this was the position when the right hon. Gentleman took over in July, 1945, but what happened afterwards? Did the right hon. Gentleman realise then, as did others in the coal industry, the great difficulty of increasing production in view of those figures, and the great difficulty of getting men to enter the mining industry? It had been common talk for a great number of years that, if the Essential Work Order was removed, a large proportion of the miners would leave the mines never to return. We were up against the enormous difficulty of increasing the number of men who would enter the industry, and of increasing the production of men who were already getting older. That was one of the main reasons why I and my colleagues were in favour of the nationalisation of the coalmines. The Government, straight away in the Speech from the Throne, said they were going to do that. They said they would see to it, that they gained the psychological advantage of being able to say to the


miners that nationalisation for which they had been asking for generations, was about to come to pass. Thanks to the efforts then made, there was an amazing recruitment to the labour force, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to be satisfied with the entry of 76,000.
But the right hon. Gentleman knew that, until we have a more complete reorganisation, until we got more mechanisation, which was bound to take a considerable time, it would be a long time before he could make his production figures satisfactory. I have always felt that the least that was really required here, was something in the neighbour hood of 225,000 tons. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman will remember it, but I believe he joined with me, during those war years, in urging upon the Government that they should take all necessary steps to see that production should not fall below 200,000 tons, but they did fall below that point. That was the situation that existed then, and it is more or less the position today. There has been a slight increase, it is true, and here let me pay my tribute again to the amazing work done by the miners. There is need for this country to focus attention on the debt which it owes to the miners, and of the need for making that industry more attractive to younger men.
So far, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But I wish he had turned his attention more to the employment of foreign labour. I do not merely mean the Poles. It is a very extraordinary story that Belgium has to tell us. They have recruited from Germany, from Poland and also from Italy, and they have made a bargain with Italy, that, in return for several hundreds of Italians who will go to help them, they will send much more coal to Italy. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had paid some attention to that, because, in time of national emergency, one should not be guided too much by possible difficulties by the leaders of the trade unions. One has to face the situation and have the courage to do what is necessary for the sake of the nation.
I have dealt with the production side. I now turn to consumption and distribution. The Government knew what the situation was. What were the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman? One of the things that worries me is this. After the Minister

had seen to it that the coal had been produced, who was responsible for its allocation and distribution? We know now, from the way in which Questions have been answered and action taken, with regard to industry, that the President of the Board of Trade had a great deal to say. The Minister of Supply had a great deal to say, and also the Minister of Transport, who told us this afternoon of the serious position of our rolling stock and engines and of the dangers of a breakdown there. Who will collate all that information in one Department and see that proper action is taken to meet the situation? Knowing, as the Government should have known, that there was an increased consumption of coal in this country; remembering that, during the war, there was a cut in coal for household consumption of about 13 million tons; remembering, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that, during the war, we had the blackout and two hours' extension of daylight saving, so that there was an increased call on coal for household consumption—remembering all these things, why did not the Government take adequate steps to see that there was the right distribution? That is the gravamen of the charge against them.
The right hon. Gentleman used words and quoted figures showing that he had come down to the House in October and warned the House of the difficulties ahead, but the words he used today were "We hoped that we should scrape through." We have not scraped through. The country today is in a situation in which it has never been before. There was a gamble on scraping through, and the Government are not entitled to gamble with the country—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, I think, he is mainly responsible for the production side, while somebody else is responsible for the rest. But although it would have been an unpopular thing to do why did he not introduce the scheme which met with the approval of the President of the Board of Trade in 1942? Those of us who were in the House at that time remember how the President of the Board of Trade came down to the House and stood at that Box and warned us that there might be disaster and irretrievable crisis in this country if the rationing scheme which he then proposed, was not accepted by this House. For some reason or other, pressure was brought to bear, and they withdrew


that scheme. I should have thought that if they felt strongly that that was the way to save the country, it would have been better to have resigned, and to have given the House their reasons for so doing.

Mr. Cobb: Would the right hon. and learned 'Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. Davies: No, I will not. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech very carefully. He said that under the scheme which the Government are introducing, there will be shorter working time, and that people will not be employed to the full capacity to which they should be employed. I honestly fail to understand why this was left, first, to exhortation; and then to a voluntary request; why the scheme was left over till 1st December, when winter was upon us, before it was even put before the industrialists; why it was withdrawn because they disagreed; introduced against on 1st January, and then, finally, reintroduced on 22nd January in the very middle of winter with, all the time, danger looming above the heads of the industrialists and the people of this country, because we could not possibly increase the amount of coal being produced. It is in that respect the Government have failed.
We now want to know who is to be responsible and what Department will be answerable for the proper distribution. We also want to know what is to be the position during this week; what are the proposals for the next fortnight or for however long may be necessary, before we get back to semi-normality, and how the Government are then going to work this plan for the rest of the period. Not only industrialists are entitled to this information; every one of us is entitled to know. This situation would be serious at any time, but it is doubly serious at a time when we are not only short of goods for home consumption, but in dire need of goods to send abroad to produce the exchange with which to buy our food and raw materials. I hope that whoever replies for the Government will go into the matter of the great need for proper distribution and allocation, so that we may know where we are.

6.53 P.m.

Mr. Bing: In opening this Debate, the right hon. Member for

Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) said that this matter transcended party lines. I listened to his speech to see what else he said to justify this. But let us suppose for a moment that what he said is correct, and let us put one or two questions to hon. Members opposite on the assumption that they are going to do something about it. What suggestions have they to offer? The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) in the course of Friday's Debate—I notice that there is now some suggestion that we should shift from that ground—was that the Government should have got more men into the mines and produced more coal. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that hon. Members on his side of the House knew all the time that this was the great difficulty. That being so, I thought it would be very interesting to see what was the first recruiting speech for miners made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perhaps the House will excuse me if I quote from it, because a certain number of the tenants of the Front Bench opposite had not, at that time, arranged for their return to this Parliament.
Quite early in the Session, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) made his final appeal for further men to work in the mines knowing, as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington had said, the seriousness of the manpower position. Speaking of volunteers, he said that these young men will be wrecking their lives.[HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] The hon. Member for Brighton.

Sir William Darling: Which one, the senior or the junior Member?

Mr. Bing: I am not quite certain which hon. Member actually takes precedence, but, if I may, I will identify him by saying that he was the hon. Member for whom the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) pressed so strongly against another candidate. I should now like to tell the House what the right hon. Member for Wood ford's special candidate thought of this matter of crisis. He said:
These young men will be wrecking their lives. There is a possibility in years to come that they will be the first to be on the dole and will also be physically wrecked
He then said, after, apparently, making a very thorough tour of the area just to see what the mining conditions were like:


Do not let us ever imagine that they intend to stay in the mines longer than necessary. I have been talking and traveling with hem during the last month in Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland and South Wales, and 1 can say without exaggeration that I did not meet more than I per cent. who had any intention whatever of going on with mining.
What was his suggestion? What ought we to do for these boys? How were we to persuade them to carry on? He had one simple plan, not that they should be forced by regulations, but that we should pay them a gratuity. He said:
Men in the three Services are to get gratuities. Arc there to be gratuities for the Bevin boys when they come out of the mines?"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1945: Vol.4r4, c 1922, 1923, 1924.]
When we recruit for one of the most skilled and most dangerous professions in the country, we should not treat the matter in the same way as hon. Members opposite treated Australia 100 years ago —as a sort of place where nice people do not go.
I will now come to the question of more men for the mines, and I should like to have an answer to the following question from the party opposite. Do they think that, had the mines remained in private hands, we should have had more men going into the industry and more coal?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly.

Mr. Bing: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Certainly." Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends give us an undertaking that, when next they go to the country, one of the planks in the Conservative programme will be to return the mines to private ownership?

Mr. Speaker: That, I am 'afraid, is a subject which would involve legislation.

Mr. Bing: If I may say so with the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, even if that proposal were included in their election programme, there would be very little chance of its resulting in legislation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the suggestion which my hon. Friend is making about the Conservative Party in the next election would require legislation in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on that. We must wait and see.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Further to that point of Order. Is it not out of Order in an Adjournment Debate to refer to subjects which are not covered by some Ministerial responsibility? Is not what the hon. Member is saying in his hustings speech something which is out of Order?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, that is so; one ought to confine oneself to what the Minister is responsible for, although one does allow the expression of ex gratia remarks on such occasions.

Mr. Bing: On Friday, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that we should regard the Debate as a Council of State. There are a number of councillors on the other side of the House, and I hope that we shall secure one or two suggestions from them. I was hoping that by making various suggestions hon. Members might assist the House. In view of what you said, Mr. Speaker, I will just read an extract dealing with the right hon. Member for Woodford, entitled "Wise Man," which appeared in the "Sunday Express," and which said:
The wisdom of Mr. Winston Churchill in resisting the demands of the Tory hot-heads over the past 18 months becomes daily more apparent. They pressed him hard to formulate a detailed policy. Mr. Churchill has consistently replied that you cannot solve the nation's problems until you know what they are.
We were hoping on this occasion that they would tell us what they are.
Certainly a detailed programme formulated 18 months ago would look rather stupid today.
The second argument which has been put forward is that my right hon. Friend should have conferred with the electricity chiefs. I do not want to make any attack upon anyone or to say anything of any person not in the House which is not justified, but I would like to know with which electricity chief it is suggested my right hon. Friend should consult. There is one electricity chief, whose name I will not mention, but if the right hon. Member for Woodford were here he would know to whom I am referring, because he is the individual who was chosen by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain to visit Jutland three days before the outbreak of the war to confer with Goering. He is the same gentleman who, so far as I as I can see, is engaged in a campaign


against my right hon. Friend at the moment. Is it suggested that my right hon. Friend should go to a man who is engaged in a campaign against him and giving private Press conferences, and disclose his plans to him? Is that the practical suggestion we have from the other side?
Let us come to the third argument, which was that the real mistake was that we on this side of the House ought to have foreseen the situation and, in particular, that the Minister is not suitable for his job—and this is the extraordinary part of the argument—because it is alleged he once said something which has turned out not to be so. That is the point on which hon. Members opposite have based their argument, and it was even put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). If I may take an expression from his own mouth, it is a rather "fishy argument," because at one time practically the only criterion, or an essential criterion, for office in the party opposite was that one should previously have made some severe misjudgment of events. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one illustration? There was a curious miscalculation which appeared in the "Daily Express "immediately prior to the war when it was said, "There will be no war." One might suppose, on those grounds, that Lord Beaverbrook should have been removed from the control of this sheet of information, but the first thing the right hon. Member for Woodford did was to take him into his Cabinet. On the basis of the argument adopted by hon. Members opposite, if my right hon. Friend had made a mistake we should have welcomed him on those very grounds. But, merely defeating the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham does not dispose of the question, any more than it does by saying that if we had had coal rationing in 1945 or 1946 we should have had exactly the same unreasonable arguments that we had against bread rationing from hon. Members opposite.
The argument in which we on this side of the House are interested rests on the real basic facts of the situation. I propose to say a few words on what I think is the basis of the whole position. What is the argument against rationing on its merits? The long-term view of the coal position is that it is a crisis of production.

If one regards it from a short-term view, then it is a crisis of transport. To get over that crisis of transport we were entitled to take risks. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that no Government should take risks. But where would the Government of the right hon. Member for Woodford have been if it had not taken risks during the war? Is not the situation now as serious as it was then? I would remind the party opposite that the election slogan "Safety First" was not one which commended itself to the people of this country. These coal difficulties, as my right hon. Friend has said, had their origin in the war situation, in the closing of the mines in 1940. It is worth noting—and paying a tribute in doing so to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) —that it was no one on the opposite side of the House who first thought of the idea of building central stocks of coal which have been a tremendous advantage to us. It was the bold action of a miner, the hon. Member for Gower, at a moment when there was universal chaos, and who, when France was falling, bought up all the coal that was going to France and founded those central dumps upon which so much of the industrial balance has depended. We have a crisis at this moment only because we have expanding employment.
The right hon. Member for Southport, who I regret is not here, quoted a number of figures. It is, of course, quite true that the war period is a time when even right hon. Gentlemen opposite are able, by one means or another, ultimately to secure full employment. The figures he refrained from quoting, and which I shall quote, showed that his argument was incorrect. It is not a bad plan to take the arguments of hon. Members opposite and see exactly where they would have led us and how they would have dealt with this coal situation. It is fair to say that they have a solution of some sort. Let me explain what that solution is. If I wish to obtain the views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am always inclined to take for my example the views of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for the City of London. I always look at it in this way: The people who vote in the City of London have two votes. One they cast in a residential suburb, if one may be permitted the expression, for some general Conservative purpose or, to snatch a metaphor from the poultry fancier, for a


White Sussex or a Buff Orpington. But for their business purposes they cast their vote for someone— [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you think you are?"] I am sorry I did not understand whether the remark was addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, or whether, by some breach of the Rules of the House, it was intended for me. If it was addressed to you, Sir, no doubt you will reply to it. If, on the other hand, it was addressed to me, it was so clearly out of Order that I ought to ignore it. Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. I thought I would see what words of wisdom I could find. I have tried to keep a little index of what the two right hon. Gentlemen say from time to time.
I would just like to interrupt my argument for a moment to deal with one point which has been made with regard to my right hon. Friend not replying to the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott), and saying he would not be at the Debate. The previous week I had the good fortune to have an exactly similar Adjournment Debate, at just about the same time. There, however, the contestant, the real party concerned, was the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan). In exactly the same way, I gave him notice that there was a very serious question for the people of this country. The Iron and Steel Federation had promised 30,000 houses, but had in fact produced only 70.I gave him notice that I was raising the matter, and pressed him to be here. I have never mentioned this or anything about it until now, but in view of the attacks made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite I would say that absenteeism is practiced among those who have perhaps less responsibility than my right hon. Friend.
To return to the point I was about to make in regard to my search for the words of wisdom which fell from the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). In the little index I found this heading, "Power." I thought I had there something which would lead me to some plan of the right hon. Gentleman, because under that heading I found a note, "Hidden reserves of". So I turned the matter up, but I found the right hon. Gentleman was dealing, not as I had hoped with fuel and power, but with unemployment. However, I mention the matter because it gives a clue to the

problem with which we are dealing. We have here the kernel of their resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Our unemployed, such as they are "—
and there were a million of them at that time— are hidden reserves of strength and power for this country. That reserve does not exist in those countries where employment has already reached full capacity."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 56th April, 194o; Vol.339, c.935.]
Obviously—and I just mention this in passing—such words of political wisdom could not pass by without adequate reward. The House will appreciate that very shortly afterwards the right hon. Gentleman was elevated to the chairmanship of the Conservative Party. But that is by the way. I merely introduce it as a clue to the crisis with which we are dealing. It shows how completely wrong is the whole conception of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. He said—if I may say so, with that studied moderation which so often serves him in place of argument or policy—that this crisis was too serious to be treated in a party spirit. That is exactly the opposite of the real situation. This crisis is just so serious because it was not possible during the Coalition to treat it in a party spirit.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) once said about hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Conservative Party was proceeding on the theory that after the war everything would return to the "chaos quo." That was the underlying conception of the Tory Members of the Coalition. They expected that they would develop a good hidden reserve, but it would not be of fuel and power but of unemployed. Of course, unemployed do not need coal. They planned to have peace. Yes, peace to make a desert and call it peace, or better still, rationalisation. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord the Member for Horsham was so worried at the possibility of ships being held up for a week, but I have searched in vain for any reference to his ever being worried about National Shipbuilders' Securities Limited. They did not hold up shipbuilding for a week, or a year. They destroyed shipbuilding yards; they prohibited ships being built for 60 years. Of course, if one believes in a policy like that, coal is not needed, and there is the solution. Why worry about miners? They are not needed. In the same way it was


very gratifying to hear the hon. Member for Darwen speaking so feelingly about the closing down of the textile mills. But I have not heard anything from the other side about the work of the Wool Cambers' Mutual Association. The Wool Combers' Mutual Association did not plan to close works for a week or a year. They planned to destroy the very machinery of which they were composed. Of course, if a policy of that sort is pursued one can get all the coal that is needed, because not very much is needed.
Let me follow this out by giving the figures which the right hon. Member for Southport did not think worth while quoting in his opening remarks. Surely the real year with which to make a comparison is 1938? Though even there the comparison is not fair, because we were engaged—or so right hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us—with a policy of rearmament, and it was not an age in which there was any restriction in domestic consumption. The actual figures for 1938 are I78½ million tons, inland consumption. The consumption for last year was, as the right hon. Gentleman said,184½ million tons. So there, where we have domestic coal rationed to the bone, we yet have an increase of six million tons. Of course, that increase of six million tons is just one of the factors which puts us in this present difficulty.
But what do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest we should do about it? Let us have this straight; let us have an answer when an hon. Gentleman opposite replies. Do they suggest the mines shall go back to private ownership? Do they suggest that what we should do is to stir into activity again National Shipbuilders' Securities Limited and the Wool Combers' Mutual Association? Do they suggest we should permanently cut down our need for coal? Or have they been converted, and do they no longer believe in these things? There is no two party solution to this matter—or, rather, there is no all party solution to this matter. There are party solutions. There is the solution of the party opposite, and there is the solution which I hope the party on this side will follow; that we should attempt to obtain the maximum production, and that we should not be afraid of running risks in so doing. We should not pursue a timorous safety-first policy, but

should accept the difficulties of risks when we come up against them. We should not try to save our coal by creating unemployment, by refusing to distribute to those in need. I believe that, not on the basis of drawing back, not on the basis of Coalition, but on the basis of going on consulting our own people, we will solve this crisis and any other crisis that comes before us.

7.19 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) opened the Debate this afternoon with a well-detailed and specific appraisal of the situation. The Minister replied in a restrained manner, which was not unworthy of the occasion. This is a moment, I suggest, when we must consider this very grave situation above and beyond party politics. If, therefore, I do not follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), it is because I do not consider that he furnished us with a speech wholly worthy of the occasion. I believe we are a little apt to confuse the issue today, by restricting ourselves entirely to the matter of electricity cuts, or indeed by bringing the matter of the weather too closely into the situation. I believe that if we are to constitute ourselves a grand jury of the nation on industrial matters, it is essential that we should view these questions, not only objectively, but as accurately as we are able. The Minister, in his somewhat mercurial manner, is apt to mislead the nation, through no fault or intention on his part, but because, I think, he is too frequently swayed by temporary signs of improvement, or, on other occasions, is depressed by a situation which occasionally appears to be overwhelming. As a result, he does, in the course of time, say pretty well everything, so that it is possible for hon. Members to catch him out on one point or another.
If I mention one or two figures it is only because I think we should hold a sense of proportion in this matter, and see things as they actually are. Where I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister made his mistake was in assuming that the year 1946 would in any way approximate to the year 1945. In fact, 1946 has been nearly exactly similar to 1944. If we take the last three months of 1946, we find that consumption was 50,000 tons—a mere bagatelle—greater than it was in 1944. What occurred was,


that in 1945, with the change-over from war production to peace production, there was a sharp decline of over 2,000,000 tons in the final quarter. In assuming, as, I think, the right hon. Gentleman did assume from time to time, that he might scrape through this winter I do not think he had full regard to the fact that consumption would not only rise, but that it would rise on a curve, which we were nearly able to predict accurately. I made a suggestion in October which was an understatement of the situation. Basing my view on past experience, I was of opinion that consumption would rise to a figure of about 4,250,000 tons a week by March of this year. In fact, we have not attained that figure yet, but, the gap which was appearing, and inevitably appearing, has brought about the situation with which we are confronted today. If there had not been a cut in electricity, there would have been a cut in steam power, the generating power of industry throughout the country.
The Minister on Friday said that, so far, 200 or 300 works had been affected out of a grand total of 45,000. The situation is that, by the month of March, it will have affected the whole range of our industry, if that gap is not closed; and production has not, in fact, been rising by anything like the amount the Minister has been leading the country to believe. I do not want to depreciate the results which have been obtained. The last months of 1946 were satisfactory. There was a gradual and an expected increase in production. It was not, as a matter of fact, as the Minister constantly claimed, achieved with a lower manpower. I would challenge the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister, if he were here, to tell me that there were fewer men employed on coal getting during that period than there were twelve months previously. It is not so. What, in fact, happened was this. With the wastage of about 70,000 or 80,000 during that twelve months, and with what is referred to as recruitment—it was not recruitment: it was the return to the mines in a great proportion of ex-Servicemen—with the recruitment which occurred, there was a big change over in the types employed, so that there were more men employed in coal getting in the latter period than in the former period.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): The figures published in the Statistical Digest are as follow: For the three months in the autumn of 1945 the numbers on colliery books were 699,000, 697,000, 698,000; for the corresponding months in 1946, there were 693,000, 692,000, 692,000.

Colonel Lancaster: That is precisely the point. What I challenge the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to say is, were there, in fact, less man employed in coal getting during that period?

Mr. Gaitskell: They were on the colliery books this morning.

Colonel Lancaster: The whole point of what I am trying to explain to the Parliamentary Secretary is, that the type of men who have come into the pits during the twelve months, and have taken the place of those who retired during that twelve months, are the younger type, the coal-getting type; and I think that when this matter is probed to its depths, he will find that there was a greater number of men employed on coal-getting in that period than previously.
We heard that during the first week of this year there was a big improvement in tonnage, but no one, neither the right- hon. Gentleman nor any of his supporters, has mentioned the fact that New Year's Day, which is an occasion, occurred on a Wednesday this year, and on a Tuesday last year. It makes all the difference. If New Year's Day is on a Tuesday, the men simply do not turn up on the Monday. This year, however, it occurred on a Wednesday, and the men turned up on the day before, the Tuesday, and on the day before that. It is only a small point, but I think it essential that we should see the picture, wholly and accurately. I do not say that the Minister willfully misleads the House on these matters, but 1 think he does over a period, produce such conflicting statements, with regard to facts and figures, that, not unnaturally, not only this House but the country is confused.
As I said, the cold weather has brought on a crisis which, in my opinion, was inevitable. Whether or not the steps taken at this moment are sufficient, is now in question. I am not sure that, in fact, the Government at this moment have gone far


enough. I believe that the only solution at this moment would be to close down power for everything except coalmining, traction and essential services, and agriculture. Unless we do that, I do not believe that the steps which are being taken will enable the power stations to build up a sufficient reserve to guarantee a constant supply of power to industry, and I believe that industry will be left in a position of uncertainty until well into the month of April. The wiser course may very well be—and I should like the Government to consider it again—to take an even more drastic view of the situation, to recognise that, unless they do build up stocks within the next fortnight, they are going to have a condition of uncertainty lasting, not only through the Winter, but through the early spring.
One could have wished that a Debate on coal had come a little later in the year. It is early to come to any conclusion in regard to nationalisation, or the work of the Coal Board, and I should be very wrong if I gave a hasty opinion at this moment. I am in the unique position, temporarily, of being a member of the Coal Board in an advisory capacity. I am not happy about the general administration that is being set up. If I refer to it now, I do so with some diffidence, because, as I say, these are very early days to come to any conclusion. Nevertheless certain tendencies are showing themselves which are germane to this issue, because after all, what are we debating today? We are not only debating the crisis but we are attempting severally to give some solution, or some help to the Government, in the problem with which they are confronted.
I believe a mistake has been made by the Coal Board in their general administration. Speaking by and large, the control of the industry is being passed into the hands of the technicians. That is not necessarily a sound thing to do; whatever attributes the average technician has, they frequently do not include administrative ability, and the fact remains that with that control and authority passing to those men, far too much of their time is at present being taken up with administrative detail rather than the job for which they are most fitted, the technical development of the industry. By and large, the great mass of administrators in the industry are being swept away. Whatever hon. and right

hon. Members opposite may think about the coal owners, there were among them a great many men of public spirit, experience and knowledge, who, at this moment, would and could have been giving great help to the industry. Most of them have been lost to the industry because of the decision that executive control should be in the hands of the technicians. I believe that to be a mistake, and I believe it will have to be put right if we are to get the best results from the efforts of the Coal Board. None of us, and I say this in all sincerity, wants to see the failure of this great industry. If it must be under this system of nationalisation, we want it to have the best chance in those circumstances, and I do not believe that the Coal Board, in its present approach to the problem, is necessarily giving the industry its best chance.
I want to take the Parliamentary Secretary up on one point he made the other evening, because it seemed to me to indicate an attitude of mind about the problems of industry, which did less than justice to the type of thing with which industrialists are concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the Debate on electricity, said that all the talk about the take-over had been so much eye-wash and, in fact, it could not have been smoother. It seemed to me that that was a very shallow remark, and I will give him a very simple military analogy. Take a battalion of soldiers under a good commanding officer. The commanding officer leaves for one reason or another, and is succeeded by a bad commanding officer. If that battalion is a good battalion, I defy anyone to say within two or three months that he is able to see any difference in the moral, discipline or general training of that battalion. It will not show itself then. But it will show months later, possibly the first time the unit goes into action, and it is precisely the same in this industry. I believe that what happened during the autumn of last year—the decision to push forward the vesting date against, I believe, the advice of everybody in the industry—will be to the ultimate detriment of the industry.
I know, as one concerned with the job of administering coal mines, that I found last autumn one of the most difficult periods with which I had ever been confronted. My senior executives were being taken away at a moment's notice and


placed in fresh jobs in other parts of the country, and as a result the whole administrative problem became more complicated and a great deal of hard work which should have been put into development problems—work which would have shown itself within six months or a year —had to go by the board. That has happened throughout the industry, and I believe it was a great mistake to have the vesting date when we had it. However, we are where we are at this moment; we are faced with this great crisis, and even bolder methods than those which the Government have indicated are required. Even in these early days, I believe it would well repay the Government to look into the administrative approach of the Coal Board to the problems of this industry. It is something with which they are concerned. They cannot say it is a matter for the Coal Board; it is a direct responsibility of the Government and of the party opposite, and I think they would be wise to look into it.
Finally, I think the Minister has the overwhelming mass of the House on his side in dealing with this problem if he is prepared at long last to face the facts of the case and act not only with promptness, vigour and courage but in a manner which enables the country to see the thing as it is, and not as he would, from time to time, have us see it. If he will take us daily and weekly into his confidence, if the Government will take the country into their confidence and will be frank, we shall all be behind him; and although this will set back our industrial recovery by months and months, we shall be able to hope to get out of it as quickly as possible.

7.37 P.m.

Mr. Crossman: I think we all appreciate contributions from the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) because he speaks about something which he really knows. I must say, however, that today his still, small and extremely well-informed voice, discussing this matter with a sober coolness worthy of this House, contrasted strongly with the strident Press campaign which preceded and led in this Debate. Judging from the tone of the Press, there was a major scandal, the Government were wholly to blame for gambling with the weather. Judging from the tone of the Press, the

Minister of Fuel and Power was an obvious and abject criminal, but the hon. and gallant Member got down to discussing the subject soberly. We find that there is universal agreement on both sides of the House that the gap between production and consumption—which was known last June, was debated at length in two Debates and was stated at length first by back benchers, then by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary —was a gap which remained unfilled. Every speech underlined that that gap must, inevitably, lead to a crisis; even the dates were given—between 10th January and the end of March—a period in which production could not keep up with consumption.
All that was perfectly well known by hon. Members of this House, whether it is known by the Press lords or not, and that, I think, is why this Debate took on a certain unreal quality when the Opposition attempted to make it look as if anybody had ever really disputed the fact that if really bad weather conditions came in late January, February or March there would be a temporary economic crisis in this country. As far as I know that was never disputed in this House. Whether or not the Minister of Fuel and Power was right in every public statement he made is not my concern, but in this House, in the Debates to which I listened, I never heard it disputed by anyone on either side that unless we had as clement a winter as we had last year we were certain, in January, February, or March, depending on the degree of badness of the weather, to have a slowing up of industry, with part-time employment or even possibly whole time unemployment. When hon. Members opposite talk about the Government gambling on the weather, I think they would be correct if they said that the Government certainly did gamble on the weather not being as bad as it was in 1894. But any Government which last June had taken precautions in anticipation of the conditions of the last ten days, since the chances were 50 to 1 against their being fulfilled, would have been held up to ridicule and odium by the Opposition for the fantastic rigidity of the austerity which they were imposing on the nation and on its economy by taking such stringent measures to deal with the very worst that could possibly happen. In that sense, we can say that the Government did gamble on the weather not


being as bad as it has turned out to be. Any other Government, above all a Tory Government, faced with similar circumstances, would have made a far bigger gamble. Nothing, therefore, could have prevented this crisis which has occurred.
I do not believe the people of the country are interested in working out, in detail, exactly what happened last Friday, and who spoke first and who spoke last. The country is profoundly disturbed because this crisis, which is the symptom of a long-term crisis, has for the first time brought home what the propaganda of the Minister of Fuel and Power entirely failed to do. Here I speak with some knowledge of propaganda, especially during the war, knowing that there is nothing like a bomb to teach people to be afraid of bombs, just as there is nothing like a crisis to make the people realise that there is a crisis. The people of this country want to hear a discussion of the actual situation as a symptom of a long-term crisis; and we should ask ourselves not how we can deal with it, today, tomorrow, or in a fortnight, but how we are to prevent it happening again next January, and the January after that. That is the real problem which confronts the Government and this House.
Before dealing with my suggestions, I should like to say one thing about what happened last year. It is literally true that if the miners had not "upped" stocks from 6 million to 10 million tons, there would have been total paralysis of industry, and if we are faced with nothing worse than that which now faces us, it is due to the effort put in by the few miners we have. The few men in the mines have done a very big job, and they have set a standard which I hope will be followed by the other nationalised industries. They worked hard before they got the concrete benefit of the five-day week. They have set a standard, and they have worked hard as was their duty. They have not taken up the attitude that they must get their cake before they work hard, and what they have achieved is to prevent a total paralysis of industry in this country. We hear criticisms from the other side of the House against the Government, and it is well to remember how much coal we should have had under a Tory administration.

Colonel Lancaster: The hon. Member is falling into precisely the same error as his right hon. Friend on this question of the "upping" of production, as he calls it. If we take the winter quarter for 1944, or any other comparable quarter, it will be seen that production has not gone bounding up, and it is misleading to suggest that it has. It has not; it is only a fractional increase.

Mr. Crossman: My point did not concern the hon. and gallant Member. My point was that production had increased in the course of the year, and I doubt whether that would have happened under a Tory Government.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Many Members on this side of the House know something about the relations between the miners and the Tories, and even fair-minded Members opposite will admit that there would have been even more strikes and more industrial unrest had not this Government been in power.
I turn now to a reasonable criticism which was made with regard to the period of the 1930's in regard to the Labour Opposition. It has often been put to me that it was the spreading of the spirit of pacifism by the Opposition before the war which made it impossible for the Tories to rearm. I used to reply to that criticism by saying that I would do what I could to fight pacifism because I did not like pacifism. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should now draw the moral of their criticism, because if there is one thing which has made it difficult for the Government to impose the stringent measures which are still necessary to get this country through, it has been the light-hearted talk and anti-control propaganda by the Tory Press and by Members on the Tory Front Bench. Members on the Tory Front Bench have accused the Government of not taking drastic measures with regard to coal. What about the attitude which they adopted towards bread rationing? Look at the day-to-day output of the Tory Press, which every day teaches the people to disbelieve in any form of restrictions, which pretends that if the Tories were in power there would be no restrictions, no rationing and no bureaucracy. Public opinion is being taught by the Tory Press to be reluctant to accept the necessities which have to be accepted today. I say to the Opposition, if the Labour movement made it difficult before the war for


the Government of the day, let them criticise themselves now, for their attitude towards this Government, which is faced with infinitely more difficulties than any Government between 1930 and 1940. In the period before the war, we were far more powerful and far stronger than we are today. And if we are to come through now, we shall only do it because we have husbanded our resources, and because we have undergone an extremely unpleasant and drastic period of stringency to avoid a greater crisis.
The Minister admitted that there was a vast increase in coal consumption. He made it clear that he was unwilling to accept the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for FyIde, and that he was not prepared drastically to impose short-time or unemployment in other industries to maintain essential production. If we are not prepared to impose rationing and say to industry that there are too many industries, and that because we have not got enough coal we must therefore trim production, it surely follows that we require a vastly increased supply of labour in the mines—a greater increase than we can possibly get by present methods of recruitment. On the other hand, if the Minister says that industry will have part-time work in certain cases because we have insufficient coal, I can understand the statement that the labour force in the mines is sufficient. But if there is to be a steady increase in consumption, are not the Government faced with the alternative, either of rationing, or of increasing the labour force throughout the mines? I believe this is the central question which faces us in coal production today.
It is a terrible thing that it should be thought fantastic to speak of coal exports today. I believe that coal is more valuable as an export to, say, Sweden, than any form of goods which we have got; that if we can get more men to dig coal and get that export trade back that will be worth more in diplomatic, as well as cash, value than many of the other exports which need coal to produce. Coal has the most vital diplomatic value in Europe today. Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that, in assessing the size of the labour force which the Ministry requires, he will do so, not merely in terms of our own consumption, but in the light of a large-scale revival of our export trade? Can we get enough men to win back these coal exports, on

which so much of British diplomatic strength in Europe greatly depends today?
The second concern I have is whether the Minister has really studied the example of France. It is worth considering the fact that France is a country which is sometimes dismissed as inefficient, and as knowing nothing about business or organisation. It is also dismissed because its trade unions are run by Communists. But it remains true, despite these irrelevant considerations, that the French production of coal, and the success of the French in reorganising their coal mines, has been remarkable. French production in the Saar, compared with our production in the Ruhr, is a staggering commentary upon French success. Has the Minister fully consulted his Socialist and trade union colleagues in France, to find why the French have managed to increase their production so much more successfully than we have?

Mr. Boothby: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent foreign labour has played a part in this development in France?

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my speech to its natural conclusion. I have talked this over with French colleagues, and I suggest that there are three reasons why the French have succeeded. First, the French have given to coal production an absolute priority. That means that they are doing something which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was doing during the war. We should regard coal production, in the same spirit as we regarded the U-boat campaign in the war. I was reading, recently, the volume of speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman during the Secret Sessions of the House during the war, and in them I saw the actual texts of the directives issued by him, and which were laid down in categorical language. There were certain essential priorities. The French have decided that coal is important enough to be given a series of priorities in France. If there is a big steel job to be done in the mines then there is no question of the mines not getting the steel they require. They get the first chop on the block. That is essential for us if we are to re-create our coal mining industry in this country.
Secondly, the French have decided to give absolute priority to housing and the


real wages of the coal miners. I stress the words "real wages," because I mean, by that phrase, food, shoes, and even sweets for their children. I believe that a little has been done in this matter in this country, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that in future, absolute priority, so far as s possible, in housing and consumer goods will be given to miners during. the next two years. I was told by a Ministry of Fuel and Power official that it was inadvisable to do this because the rest of the country might be jealous. But I want the Minister to tell the country that the miners will get this better food and more shoes, and other things in the shops, because the country wants more miners.
There is a third reason why the French have succeeded. Apart from getting every possible French ex-miner back to their mines, they have increased the bulk of their labour force by the vast exploitation of German prisoners and Polish labour. I am not minimising the difference between Britain and France, because I know that there is a long-standing tradition in the French Labour movement that the dirty jobs should not be done by Frenchmen, but by foreigners. We do not want to create a class system in the Labour movement here, with the low-grade work being done by the foreigner and the high-grade work being done by the Englishman. But what the French have done proves that it is possible to introduce into our mines a large amount of extra labour. I am told that only 231 Polish ex-miners, who speak perfect English, are available for work in our mines. Well, I might find only one Welshman who spoke perfect Polish. But would this mean that no Welsh miner could ever work in a Polish pit if the thing was reversed?
I ask the Government to reconsider their attitude on the question of Poles in the Polish Army. We are spending £4 to £ million a year on maintaining a fantastic organisation, semi-military in character, under which Poles are released as slowly as possible from the clutches of their commanding officers. Instead of that, cannot they be made useful to us? Cannot we take some of these men for the mines? Cannot we persuade the National Union of Mineworkers—I am certain they will agree if it is presented to them that

in the national cause it will be necessary to engage Poles on a two or three year contract— that large numbers of Polish soldiers should be given a trial in our mines?
I believe that the lesson of this week may be a merciful deliverance for this country if it makes us realise that we have to do that. Maybe if the weather had been nicer, we should not have had this Debate. We should have just slipped through the crisis, and the country would never have been faced with the fundamental issue we are facing today, which has nothing to do, of course, with the Weather—[HON Members: "yes] I Agree that position has only become acute enough to debate because of the weather—acute enough today for it to be raised as an urgent issue because most people in the country are short of coal and work. We should consider the possibility of turning this crisis into a grand deliverance. Otherwise, we shall have an economic catastrophe.
I mentioned the French use of priorities. I believe that is essential where you have to get things done, where you are not working in ordinary, normal, peacetime conditions then you cannot do everything simultaneously. You cannot rebuild the schools, replan the mines, and build up every industry simultaneously, because you have not got the labour. So we have to select. If there is to be any economic plan, coal is No.1. Coal is at the base. In any economic plan the Government put forward coal must be the basis, and should be given clear priority. We should have before us each week, the efforts being made on behalf of that priority. I agree that it is magnificent that 76,000 extra men have come into the mines. But we must consider the other figures. There was a net loss last year of 3,000. We have not yet caught up with the wastage, and that is a fact which this House has to face. A year ago, there were soldiers coming back, and many extra recruits were obtained from those returning soldiers, whom we shall not be able to get again.
How are we to get this extra labour? Surely, it would be possible, to promote once again a system of option, so that men now being called up could volunteer for the mines or the Forces? I believe that if the young men of this country showed a


preference to go into the mines rather than the Forces, they should have the right of choice. An appeal should also go out that any soldier who is willing now to go back to the mines will be allowed to do so within two months. I believe that an appeal of that kind should be coupled with the information to the people of this country, that in this grave crisis we have to do all we can, even if the task is unpleasant. How are we to get the miners, and how are we to meet the increased consumption? How will it be possible to prevent these two graphs from becoming lopsided? If we can obtain as a result of the disaster which has bean happening this week the miners who are necessary, then we can go forward on a basis of planned economy. I address that remark to the Opposition, for this will mean not mollycoddling and muddling along, but more drastic Socialist planning. My criticism of the Government is that they pay too much attention to complaints about rationing and austerity, which have been raised from the other side of the House, and which do not express the will of the people. I hope that the Government will carry all Socialist measures through in defiance of the kind of people who bleated at bread rationing. Then they will be doing the right thing.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: We have listened to a very interesting political excursion from one of the high intelligentsia of the Socialist Party. I should be ungrateful if I did not express the satisfaction with which I heard his tributes to the vigour with which great problems, like the U-boat war, were coped with under other leadership than now prevails. The hon. Member seems to me to be deploying his criticism of the Government upon a fairly wide ground. Hitherto, he has dealt particularly with the sphere of foreign affairs, and his counsels have been addressed, with great pertinacity and vigour, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and those who are so misguided as to lend him their support Tonight, he has opened up in the home field—perhaps his fighting on the foreign front was not very successful—but now he has turned upon the Government and has criticised them. The worst criticisms very often are those which are only by implication, and he has criticised them for "messing and molly-coddling," I think were his words, and has given them a great deal of good advice as to

the way in which they should reform their policy; how they should imitate the French in many things which they are doing in coalmining; how they should have greater numbers of Poles sent down our pits, not worrying about the ignorant trade unions who may have objection; brushing out of the way any difference of language or anything like that. He has pressed upon the Government a vigorous policy in respect of coal production, and has used a great many arguments which did not receive the hostile reception he might have expected from the Tory Benches.

Mr. Crossman: They did not understand me.

Mr. Churchill: If the hon. Member is to retain his reputation as one of the intelligentsia, he ought to endeavour to develop more apt and refined fauns of repartee. The whole of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was a serious criticism of the Government. Whether the measures which he advocates are sound or not, I do not attempt to decide and discuss, but his criticism is that they have not been adopted by the Government, and that that is one of the reasons why we have come to our present pass. He now says that the bad weather, on which the Administration repose so much of their defence, is a merciful deliverance. I think that he said that it was a "blessing in disguise." It is certainly a very effective disguise to many of us. All over the country, hard working wage-earners will be shut out of their factories for the next few days, or even for a week, and householders will be put to a great deal of inconvenience. He regarded that as a merciful deliverance. If, of course—although I should not predict such an outcome of events—but if the anger of the country at the ordeals to which it has been subjected leads. us, as the hon. Gentleman argues—

Mr. Crussman: No.

Mr. Churchill: If it should result in the expulsion from power of our present rulers, it would, indeed, be a merciful deliverance.[HON. MEMBERS: "For whom?"] I leave the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Grossman) where he properly belongs.
I should like to say that I did not rise tonight for the purpose of making a prolonged and detailed examination of the


coal problem. We shall have other opportunities; and I may make it clear that, in view of the fact that absolutely no answer has been given to the statements which we have made, and for many reasons outside the scope of this emergency Debate, we shall seek other opportunities. I trust that they will lead to a very thorough consideration of the whole coal position, to the means of providing the necessary manpower, and, what is, in my opinion, still more efficacious. the best machinery. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Poles. We all know the difficulty there is about getting them to work in the mines. I have no hesitation in saying to the House that, personally, had I been responsible, I had always intended that the 18o,000 Poles and their dependants should go to Germany as part of the Army of Occupation, far from the Russian or Polish frontiers, and we might then have had 150,000 or 18o,000 Englishmen at home with their families and working in our industries; but this was brushed aside by what I think were superficial and shortsighted criticisms.
Presently in this Session we will ask for a further opportunity of discussing the coal problem, but today we have nothing before us except the speech of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I listened to his speech with attention, and I felt sure he was going to reach a thoroughly complacent conclusion. It reminded me of what I think Burke said of the Governments he was attacking in a former century:
We have a very good Government, but we have a very bad people.
As a subsection of this argument, we were told of all the achievements with which the right hon. Gentleman had adorned his Ministerial career. That part really amounted to saying, "How Bill Adams did not win the Battle of Waterloo." I have followed very closely the right hon. Gentleman in war and in peace. He was a bitter critic of any errors we made in the times that are gone, in the years of struggle, but he was infinitely glad whenever we won. In that respect his attitude was differentiated markedly from that of some other colleagues who sit with him now upon that Front Bench. I, for my part, will follow his example, and, though critical, I would like to say how very glad I am whenever I read of a

better output from the mines as a result of better work and more regular timekeeping by the miners. Whatever one may think about political considerations, one must always rejoice at anything which helps our country in its perils and harsh times. There is very little doubt in my mind that things are going to get worse.I do net mean that this particular emergency is going to lay us low, but the country is going to suffer. It is going to suffer increasingly, and it will learn by its sufferings. We hope and pray that this period of tribulation may be abridged and mitigated as far as possible.
We have a long way to look back in this coal problem, and the right hon. Gentleman, foreseeing perhaps that he might be deprived of his igloo of bad weather by some of his critics below the Gangway, went right back to 1940. That is a long way back—

Mr. Shurmer: Go back to 1926.

Mr. Churchill: Was that the year when the Labour Party, having been defeated at the General Election, endeavoured to regain by a General Strike what they had lost? We have gone a long way in the seven years since 1940. The war has been won and there have been all the election promises of the brave new world and the great advantages to come. All these promises have been made. There was a widespread belief a year and a half ago, or even a year ago, that some quite definite reward in the shape of a mitigation of basic conditions would come to our people as a consequence of victory, and the fact that it has not come, in spite of all the expectations which were dangled before them, vaunted before them—all the baits which were held out—is a deep and bitter disappointment to all. I am not going to put all the blame upon the Minister of Fuel and Power.[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not hunt harassed or falling Ministers. I prefer to go for the more blatant figures that are rising, or seeking to rise, to the summit of their ambition. The cause of our troubles is wider and deeper than the shortcomings or foolish speeches or contradictory forecasts of any Minister.
I do not—and here I share the feelings which have been expressed on the other side—I do not blame the Government for the weather. Still, there is always a


weather danger in the winter in this country, and this is the first winter, as was well said, which has brought us to disaster. Every year from 1940 onwards I had to look forward, until I was relieved of my responsibilities, to this fear of a coal shortage in the winter, and two or three times, with the advice on which I relied, I discounted some of the gloomy prophecies which were made; but this is the first time, in time of peace, when we have come to such a collapse as we have at the present time. Again, I say we need not exaggerate the degree of the disaster, but neither must we underestimate its very serious nature, in view of our financial position and our economic position. It is very serious to our country. This is not a week's loss of production. It will dislocate industry for at least a month one way and another, with serious financial results, and this at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his finely chosen language, tells the world that we are living "on tick." I say that we are in the presence of an inexcusable breakdown, and it is not to be escaped by a general academic discussion upon the coal position arid upon the difficulties of finding sufficient manpower.
What I wish to do this evening—and this is the purpose of this specific Debate which we should otherwise have asked for on the Adjournment as relating to a matter of definite and urgent importance —is to focus on the statement of the Minister of Fuel and Power. He has given no explanation of his tactics on Friday. He ought to have seen the danger long ago, and he ought to have provided against it, or at least he ought to have told us what was coming, or what might come. Is that very much to ask? He ought to have had an emergency plan made months ago, for regulating electricity supplies on the basis of the known coal shortage and of the danger which is ever present of a hard winter spell. In war, many misfortunes happened which could not be prevented, and, God knows, we went through some frightful disappointments and miscalculations in the war.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, and we all stood by the Government in their difficulties during the war.

Mr. Churchill: Certainly, and it is not our fault that the nation is facing all these grave difficulties divided as it is. As

I said, we went through many misfortunes which could not be prevented, but any efficient Administration has always worked out beforehand a number of alternative emergency plans. One opens a drawer, and pulls out a plan made perhaps a year before by long and patient study. I might mention to the Government—the planners—that that is done in an efficient Administration. There ought to have been a plan for regulating electricity supplies during hard weather should it come in January or February. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman for all the troubles of the coal shortage, and I much applaud the efforts he has made to encourage greater output in the coal industry, but he ought to have had a well worked out plan for regulating electricity supplies. In peacetime he could have done what could not be done in wartime—he could have told the people about it, saying, "If trouble comes, this is what you will have to do." He could even have had a dress rehearsal. With all the facilities of modern government including the radio of which the party opposite take such great advantages, spouting forth their party nostrums, we might have had a little drill in preparation for what might happen, if bad weather came in January and February, and we had to have severe contraction and regulation of electricity as a result.
I am reminded that the Prime Minister is very shortly to address us on the radio, and though I am 10th to criticise the right hon. Gentleman in his absence, I must say that he might have reinforced the efforts of the Minister of Fuel and Power, in teaching the people the outlines of the kind of thing that would happen to our industries and to our domestic consumers, in the event of an unusual spell of hard weather falling upon us during the months of January and February. Why was such a plan not made? If we had not forced a Debate on Friday, I wonder how this House of Commons would have heard about these sudden cuts. We forced the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) had the Motion for the Adjournment, and we pressed that it should be taken practically as a whole day's Debate. After the usual tussle the matter was conceded. If it had not been—

Mr. Shinwell: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was not the


Opposition Members who pressed for the Debate. Mr. Speaker suggested that the Debate would emerge from the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Churchill: We can go a little further back in this matter. The Minister can look behind him to the third Bench above the Gangway where he will see a member of his own party—a miner.[HON. MEMBERS:"NO"] What would hon. Members like me to call him? Not long ago, he was a Member of the Socialist Administration. He himself tried to obtain the Adjournment for a Debate. I will not take credit for this side of the House which does not properly belong to us, but we heartily supported the hon. Member, and we were rather disappointed when, evidently after some conversation through the usual channels, he seemed to mitigate the vigour and the ferocity of his attack.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Had the right hon. Gentleman been present at the Debate on Friday, he would not have said that.

Mr. Churchill: I certainly do not wish to discourage the hon. Gentleman in any way from attacking the Government, and if I had known he was going to do so effectively, I should have made exertions to be in my usual place.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to read HANSARD, he would have seen that the responsibility was put at the door where it properly belongs.

Mr. Churchill: The responsible Minister, the Minister of Fuel and Power, has a dwelling of which we have seen photographs in the newspapers. There is the door at which alone the responsibility can be placed. I do not wish however to be drawn away into an argument as to who had the credit of forcing a Debate on Friday on the coal question upon a reluctant Government I was wishing to get to the point that, if it had not been for that Debate, I do not know how the House would have been informed of these cuts. At the end of the Debate or when it was well advanced, in the last part of his speech, to the astonishment of everybody the right hon Gentleman made this formidable announcement.
We have been told by the Prime Minister today that we could hardly have

been told earlier because the decision was taken only that morning. Is there to be no foresight? Is there to be no preparation for emergencies of this kind? The decision is taken in the morning, and the Minister, at the end of his speech, tells us of these grave and far-reaching measures of administration, which now have to be forced, not only upon the domestic consumers, but upon all the industries of the country. Why was this decision only taken that morning? I say that there could have been a thoroughly well worked out plan. Was the plan which was announced a good one? Here I cannot pronounce, because I have not access to the resources of the right hon. Gentleman, but was it a good plan for regulating electricity?
Is it a workable and useful scheme? Many great electrical supply centres and authorities assure us that it is impossible to enforce this particular plan, and that it enforced it would be ineffectual. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would have dealt with this matter in the course of his speech. I am told—and perhaps the Chancellor will deal with this point if he is to reply—that cutting domestic consumers for three hours and for two hours, will not result in saving much coal because the furnaces have to be kept going all the time. They are very hot when the cut begins, and, in view of the banking up and the accumulated demand which will come upon them the moment the supply is resumed, they cannot be let down, so that the saving et coal is not actually appreciable. Whether this is true or not, I cannot tell, but I should be glad to hear. If foresight had been used it seems to me that a system of staggered use by consumers might have been devised and drilled into them with all the facilities of modern government, and if the Government had convinced us, the Opposition, of the necessity for these measures we would have aided them in the same way as we have aided them in the National Savings Movement.

Mr. Leslie Hale: What about bread rationing?

Mr. Churchill: I still think that bread rationing could easily have been averted by good administration. It may well be that before this Session is concluded, it will be possible to submit a convincing argument to the House on that subject.
It foresight had been used, and the consumers had been taught to spread their use of electricity—if you like by alphabetical groups over the different hours of the day, there might have been an average reduction of tension, rather than this not very helpful gap of three hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. As for industry, there was what is called the Shinwell plan. Presently, that plan was superseded by what is called—a term of art—the Cripps plan.
Presumably the Cripps plan was adopted by the Government because it was thought to be better than the Shinwell plan. We can hardly believe it was adopted because it was known to he worse. Why was this so-called Cripps plan not made effective earlier? Clearly there was a departmental breakdown. We heard a pathetic lament from an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite last wee k about his journeys from one Department to another in a matter connected with the fuel supply of the companies in his constituency.
Why was not the Cripps plan adopted earlier if it was a better plan? Apart from the distribution of electricity, if the industry has been consulted earlier this plan of allocation of coal, or whatever was the best plan, would have been operative long before the weather crisis was likely to arise. It would have been operative and not just ready in January—when just as it was going to come into operation down came the shocking blizzard. It could perfectly well have been operated two or three months before, and there would have been no shock such as has been administered to our industry. We should have had the best allocation of coal, if it is the best allocation—and I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had any doctrinaire motive for not making it the best allocation of coal. It seems to me one of the cases where his theories and his duties flowed into one channel. In addition, we should have had an exactly worked out scheme for curtailing electricity supplies and administering them in a period of emergency should it come.
Here are two grave faults and administrative collapses by the Socialist planning Government First, they did not adopt the right allocation plan in good time. That is admitted. Secondly, they did not

draw up a carefully worked out scheme, which could be put into operation by a simple order for the effective rationing of electric current throughout the 24 hours. I must tell you the truth, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. They are all so busy with doctrinaire nationalisation, and so ardently involved in the class war, that they have no time, or strength or brains for making the ordinary administrative arrangements which common prudence demands. This is characteristic of our affairs at this time at home and abroad. What we are experiencing now is a sample of Socialism or, if you will, of half-baked Socialism.
I notice that the Attorney-General is not here. He is probably busy making some speech for which he will afterwards have to apologise. I am not attacking the right hon. and learned Gentleman because, as a matter of fact, I welcome his admission, with great frankness, as rightly linking this breakdown with the fortunes of the Socialist experiment. He made a remarkable admission. The whole fortunes of Socialism apparently depend on whether we can get out of this crisis or not. He should have a little more confidence in the theoretical foundations of a great movement, or—I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just come in and I will finish with him—a more careful study of Karl Marx, if he can spare the time from his many activities, will perhaps refresh his flagging fortitude and faith.
The brute fact is that Socialism means mismanagement. It means mismanagement, bad housekeeping, incompetence in high places and progressive degeneration of our island life. We now have a vast increase of civil servants looking after our affairs. I have some figures here. In June,1939,
there were 539,000 civil servants engaged in national government; in November,1946 there were 1,007,000, or almost double. In local government there was a rise from 846,000 to 1,025,000—a great increase.

Wing-Commander Millington: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for midsummer 1945?

Mr. Churchill: The point I am going to make is of great importance. Here we have almost doubled the staff required to manage the country. This increase of those who do not add directly to the production of the country is an enormous


one, and yet with all the assistance of this 400,000 or 500,000 additional civil servants, we have not even got the capacity or the organising force to work out this simple plan for the distribution of electricity or to find the best means of allocating coal to the industries until it is admittedly too late. All this burden is cast upon us through the increase of the civil servants looking after our affairs—hundreds of thousands living on the sweat of the toilers, hampering energy, enterprise and ingenuity at every stage. Yet, with this vast increase, they are not even capable of taking the simplest administrative precautions against dangers which must have been, or ought to have been, apprehended as very likely to occur in the present season of the year. I have spoken about these matters, and I shall take other opportunities of speaking in the country upon them. There is no need for us on this side of the House to hesitate to point the moral. There is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe he will reply.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Tributes will be more welcome when they are the result of a fine performance, but not when they are merely the ebullition of perfervid loyalty.
I am astonished at the levity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with his tremendous task. The other day he made a speech at Gateshead which I can only characterise as odious and disgraceful. It was most unsuited to the position which he holds where from time to time some feeling of being a national trustee ought to break in upon his party factions. This is what he said, speaking. of the coal shortage:
The wretched private coalowners before they flitted "—
not a particularly accurate word to describe the transaction—
left us with stocks of coal lower than ever before in our history. This winter we have had coal cuts and sheddings of electricity loads. That is entirely the responsibility of private enterprise…
It is perfectly vain to suppose that by unthinking cheers, however warmly they may express partisanship, any change was made in the basis facts as known to the bulk of the nation. For at least seven years, the entire control of the coal industry, the regulation of its staffs and the provision against winter shortages have been regulated by the Government of the

country, first of all for five years under the national Coalition, and since then by those who now have the power. And yet although everything has been directed under this control to the necessary stocks to get us through the winter and to tide over the year, and although this control has been absolute and complete throughout the industry for seven years, it is considered a clever thing to say:
The wretched coalowners flitted…
Is it worth cheering that statement that this was "one of the great breakdowns of private enterprise"? Time alone will show whether this country will submit indefinitely to arguments so fallacious and absurd. It has well been said that one can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time. I have every hope, under the mercy of Providence, of living to see a very great awakening in our country, and that false arguments animated by harsh malicious jealousies and spites will be condemned in England, as they have been condemned in the past. I hope, indeed, that the crisis will soon pass, but the marks will remain for a long time in our economy and finance. We should all do our best to comply with such Government instructions as reach us, and let us hope that the nation will realise, from this flagrant example, the downward stairway upon which they are now thrust, and of which they have only descended the first few steps.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sure the whole House will join in congratulating the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on a contribution to this Debate which was in his old accustomed vein. He has appeared a little lonely and moody during the illness of the Lord President of the Council, and this minor crisis seems to have given him new vigour and a new opportunity of exercising those very special talents which we all admire but which are primarily talents for invective. He said in the opening of his speech that he did not intend to make a prolonged and detailed examination of the coal problem. We must congratulate him on carrying out that undertaking in the spirit and the letter. He referred to general strikes and to election promises. I share the representation of Oldham, which he used to represent many years ago. The only thing which comes between his repre-


sentation and mine is a couple of wars and long years of unemployment. I promised many things, but they have all been achieved, and I can report to my constituents today and say that the things that I promised at election time have now been achieved and we are marching on to the future—[An HON. MEMBER: "During the coal shortage?"] I will deal with the coal position because I think the lime has come when someone should deal with it. It has never been dealt with from the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) opened his speech by saving that this was a serious occasion, and all of us on these lenches realise that it is a serious occasion. Could he have turned round and seen the smirks of joy and amusement on the faces of his followers behind him, he would have realised that they came here in a totally different spirit. The right hon. Member for Southport spoke for 31 minutes. He spent 30 minutes attacking the Minister of Fuel and Power and one minute talking about coal, of which he appears to have a somewhat elementary knowledge. Throughout that speech the cheers were rolling out from the cohorts assembled behind him, many of whom I do not think have heard a speech in the House of Commons for a long time. They had all the appearance of baseball fans responding to their cheer leader. Benjamin Disraeli in one of his famous speeches talked of the vision of the Front Bench which he had to survey. He said it appeared like some South American marine landscape:
A row of exhausted volcanoes with not a flicker of light on any pallid crest. Here and there there was an occasional earthquake or the dark rumbling of the sea
In the absence of the right hon. Member for Woodford, whom I certainly do not put in that class, we have had the misfortune to survey constantly a row of deserted mole hills. But to-day, and indeed since Friday, there has been a certain amount of activity amongst the fauna on the Opposition Benches. I am not sufficiently a zoologist to have identified them completely, and I hope I am not unflattering if I say that the movements have reminded me much more of the movements one might expect, on the knowledge given us by mariners, when the ship of State, however ably it is piloted, and with how-

ever brilliant a crew, sails for a moment into stormy waters and we then see these movements of the fauna deep down in the depths of the hold.
The right hon. Member for Woodford said we had gone back a little far. I want to agree with one thing that has been said. There have been warnings in this matter and the warnings have been ignored. The first warning was made in 1919 when the Sankey Report on the condition of the coal industry recommended immediate nationalisation and insisted on a widespread measure of reorganisation, with social welfare work for the miners who had listened to the speeches that the right hon. Gentleman was making in that war. Those warnings were ignored and we came to 1926, when the right hon. Gentleman added to his triumphs in many other fields by working as a journalist, and became the editor of the "British Gazette". The right hon. Gentleman referred to the General Strike. I want to refer to six months of bitterly relentless coal lock-out when our men were "clemmed" into submission, and the men amongst whom I live, some of the finest men in this country, starved on three days' work a week which they got only when they heard the whistle blow in the mornings, and did not know until the buzzer blew whether they were going to work that day.

Mr. Churchill: I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that we delayed this crisis for a whole year at a cost of fi6 million in the hope of arriving at a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Hale: I think the right hon. Gentleman is in error in his recollections. What was done, by a piece of political adroitness, was to postpone the lock-out until the hot weather, when the men could be starved into submission, and a subsidy was given which enabled the colliery owners, who were intelligent enough to take advantage of it, to do a certain amount of financial adjustment, and that involved an expenditure of £16 million. There was the Reid Report, the greatest condemnation of an industry prepared by its own industrialists, by men not on our benches but on their benches, which tell us that this great industry has been allowed to go into such desuetude and into such distress and such economic chaos that nothing but a widescale operation, conducted on nationally organised


lines, can get coal production going again. Milestone after milestone of warning has been ignored.
There has been reference today to the stock position which has followed in the same manner. In 1943 it was 20 million tons. In 1944 it was 18 million tons, in 1945 it was 14 million tons, and in 1946 it was 10 million tons. It was the same process of worn out machines, of shortage of wagons, of lack of transport, of the clogging of the haulage roads, and of the taking away of the essential manpower to keep the industry alive. Hon. Gentlemen talk about warnings. In 1940 the Tories were told that if they took young men away from the mines, they were taking away our vital support and vital organisation. They took no notice of the expert advice, and the men were taken. Since then our men have been exhorted shift after shift to work harder, week after week to produce more. Throughout the war they were called upon to make superhuman efforts and then, at the end, from the Tory benches hon. Members ask why do they not increase output? They ask why do not these men of 55, 56 and 57 go on turning out the coal that they turned out under the exhortations of statesmen in this country during a great world war?
I say that there has been a bitter, a relentless criticism and attack on the miners from those benches which has gone far to create disorganisation and lack of confidence in the mining areas. In 1942 the figures were known. They have not had regard to the essential wastage that has gone on year by year. In 1942 the Government recommended the rationing of fuel and power. What happened? The power that dominated the Tory benches throughout the war and throughout the years of peace, the power that was behind Munich and the power that set the Munich to Dunkirk express on its way, said, "We will not consent to this; it affects our vested interests" So rationing was not not adopted. Warning after warning has been given.
What have we had in the way of hope from the Tory benches in this matter? There have been three Debates on this question. The first, in July, was opened by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), and after he had spent half an hour being rude to the Minister, which is a favourite Conservative

hobby, somebody said, "Have you any suggestions to make?" The right hon. Gentleman was amazed at such a suggestion. He said, "This is a Supply Day. I am not allowed to make suggestions on a Supply Day; it would not be right" The next one in, October was opened by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank), and nobody expects him to make a constructive suggestion. He is always entertaining and facetious, and pokes the Minister of Fuel in the pit of his stomach with his rapier without doing any permanent harm. No, no one on these benches would be sufficiently foolish to suggest that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough would make a suggestion of any kind. Then we come to today, and the right hon. Member for Southport was interrupted by one of the pressing people on our benches who asked, "Why not say what you would have done?" "Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, just like a young counsel taking his first case, "I am not here to answer questions, I am here to ask them. You must not expect me to answer anything." The result is, that except for a short constructive statement by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who always talks on matters of coal with a sense of responsibility and ability, this Debate, in this grave situation, has consisted of a frivolous, foolish, irresponsible attack upon the Minister and has had no reference to the real facts of the situation.
I have looked up the records of HANSARD to see what other contributions have been made from those benches. I find that question after question has been asked of the Minister, "Why do you not export more coal?" Time after time the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), and other more able of the Tory Members have been pressing for increased exports. Other hon. Members have been pressing for additional allowances. One hon. Member asked, "Why not give agricultural labourers the full allowance which the miner gets in the way of allowance coal and so on?" They were all pressing, but when we came to a little concrete example a la Wentworth Woodhouse, the Minister said," I am sorry to destroy the beauty spot, which will take a year or two to rebuild. But there are masses of coal under this that must be got." When it became a


question of coal or pansies hon. Members opposite were on the side of the pansies.
This is a grave situation; we know it. We will go to our constituencies this week with a certain heaviness of heart, but knowing that we represent people who understand and who have suffered so much under Tory Governments in the past that they will willingly endure a few days of discomfort until this little storm passes. I live in one mining village and practice as a solicitor in two other mining areas. I am solicitor for two mining unions and I am the Member of a constituency on the edge of a fourth large mining area. There is a spirit in those districts today which has never been there before. My local pit last week produced more coal than ever in its history. The miner looks forward to the visions from which Tory ineptitude has so long precluded him. He is looking forward to new methods, new organisation, new opportunity of life and new terms of employment. An hon. Member has asked if nationalisation had produced a ton of coal. The answer is that it produced a million tons of coal in the first fortnight—a million more than the average.
That is the response the miner is making to the activities of the Minister of Fuel and Power. The whole of the miners are behind the Minister today and they realise that the decision he had to make in December—which might mean immediate and uneconomic rationing—was a decision which could reasonably and properly be made on a basis of trying to get through an average winter. The miners realise that but for the worst weather for 5o years it would have been a success. It is going to mean some days of stress and difficulty and will bring our people face to face with the real problem. But it will not by one iota relax the miners' determination to support the National Coal Board and the Minister. They will produce the coal and help to put us back on the road to prosperity.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I hope the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his extremely entertaining speech, because I want to confine my remarks strictly to the position in which the country is placed at the moment, and the personal responsibility of the Minister of Fuel and Power. The announcement which was made by the Minister on Friday afternoon was one

of the most momentous ever made in this House in time of peace. I want to examine the way in which it was made. Today the Minister told us that the decision to impose these power cuts was taken before midday. Why did he not realise the importance of making the announcement in time for it to be broadcast on the one o'clock news, and to have reached the managers of industrial undertakings in the early editions of evening newspapers? Because the Minister held back that announcement until 10 minutes past three that afternoon for the sake of a petty advantage in debate, industrialists did not get that information until they got home in the evening, having closed their works until this morning. Do hon. Members opposite realise that this morning hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers journeyed to their places of employment to be told that there was no work for them. I say that that is a monstrous way for a responsible Minister to have treated the men and women who work in industry.
The Minister's announcement was not only timed to create the maximum industrial disorder; but it was not a carefully planned scheme to meet a situation such as this, but was, in fact, a hasty improvisation. That was shown at the Minister's Press conference that evening, when he was not able to answer the most obvious questions, such as the position of the doctors and dentists, of the weekly periodicals and newspapers, whether dye-cleaners came in the same category as laundries, etc., nor, indeed, what was the position of coffin makers, although one might have thought that that was one article for which His Majesty's Government might have thought fit to have made provision. The Minister admitted that those details were still being worked out, which showed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said, that there was no prepared plan. Indeed, that part of it which dealt with the imposed cuts has been said to be impracticable. The great electricity undertakings which cover Birmingham and Coventry have announced that it is quite unworkable to attempt to impose power cuts at the source.
It is obvious that we are in the position in which we are today because realistic steps were not taken 12 months or more ago, in order to build up stocks during the spring and summer of last year. The Minister taunted us on this side about


how we would have built up stocks. Surely there is an obvious solution? We know quite well, as the hon. Member for Oldham told us, that the miners today are doing a very good job of work. But surely the reason we are in this position now is that we have not got enough miners, for we have today 90,000 fewer than in 1938. But we are not the only nation which has found itself in such a position. France found herself in exactly the same position, and what did she do? She put 54,000 German miners to work in the pits. The result is that France's coal output today exceeds what it was in 1938. We have not a single German miner working in the pits today; we have not a single Pole, nor have we yet any workers from U.N.R.R.A.'s displaced persons in Germany. The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) reminded us how much it is costing us to keep the Poles in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last week that, expressed in terms of Income Tax, our contributions to U.N.R.R.A. are costing us 9d in the £. Why do we not get value for the money, and do as Belgium is doing, that is to say recruit 15,000 or 20,000 miners from this source. Sooner or later we shall have to do this. What shall we then find? That France, Belgium and other nations will have taken the pick of the labour available.
The Minister has had plenty of warnings, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has told us. Not only has he had warnings from this side of the House, but also from no less a person than the miners' leader, Mr. Arthur Horner. On 1st September last he said that we might well have a million unemployed at this time of the year, owing to the shortage of coal, due to not having enough miners. But of course the Minister said we did not want any more miners, because there was not going to be a crisis any more than there were going to be cuts in electricity. The Minister quoted a letter which he wrote on 8th October. I will quote another. This is the letter which the right hon. Gentleman sent out to all industries on 4th December. He said:
If industrial consumers at once curtail their consumption by 5 per cent… [it]… should suffice to enable industry to get through this winter without any serious interruption in activity. Yours faithfully, E. Shinwell.

I suggest to the Minister that that was a thoroughly misleading letter. Only ten days after that, what happened? The Austin factory was brought to the point of having to close down and was only kept going for a time by the switching of 500 tons of coal which had already been consigned to the Rover Company. I suppose that is. what the right hon. Gentleman calls planning.
The Minister has said that the allocations never had a chance owing to the freeze-up. But the coal position was chaotic long before the bad weather started. Let me quote the example of the Rover Company. That company requires 450 tons of coal a week, but their allocation was only 230 tons. This was reduced by one half, to 115 tons, under the "realistic scheme "of the President of the Board of Trade, and the firm has not been able to get even that. How can industry carry on in circumstances such as this?
It is plain that we have reached this position because this Government of planners has no plans whatever. In consequence, the rhythm of industrial production has been brought to a full stop and the unemployed today can be counted in millions. The harm which has been done to our national reconstruction and lo our export trade is incalculable. Nor have we any reason to be confident that things are going to be any better either next year. It is time that the Government really planned for production in order to put the country back on its feet and to ensure that we do not stagger from one crisis to another.

9.14 p.m.

Captain Peart: I wish to intervene because I represent a constituency in the important coalfield of Cumberland and also because I can see in my constituency the fruits of Socialist planning. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) again echoed his cry of "Woe, woe, woe," which we had at the Tory Conference and on the wireless in 1945. It cost the Tory Party dearly. I think I speak for most development areas and coal districts when I say that there is in my constituency under a Labour Government a better spirit amongst the people which will, I am certain, reflect itself in increased output. Apart from coal production, there are in some of the development areas,


such as West Cumberland, new factories with new workers producing goods which are essential to our industrial recovery and to our export trade.
That is happening under Socialist planning. When I hear the right hon. Member for Woodford talking so glibly, as he so often does, on domestic policy, and when I hear him talking about unfulfilled promises, I think of the miners in my constituency who walked the dole queues when little towns like Maryport had 60 per cent. of their men unemployed. I commend to the Opposition an interesting editorial which appeared in yesterday's "Observer." I quote that editorial so that I shall not be accused of bias on this particular problem:
The crisis has ancient roots, and it is no use ignoring them because most of them are dismally familiar.
It goes on to mention that "the failure of the Government in 1940 to regard the coal industry as a top-ranking industry…"We then had, as was stated by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), the stupid calling-up of miners into the Armed Forces. We are still suffering from the disastrous effects of that policy. Again we are still suffering from a lack of mechanisation, that failure to develop, on sound technical lines. It was not that industry was just run by private enterprise; that there was no enterprise in the industry. It was an industry controlled by private monopoly, and it failed not only to produce the coal for the nation, but to give the people working in the industry that security which I believe they deserve. As the "Observer "editorial states:
This was the gloomy heritage which the Labour Government took over.
I sympathise with the Minister of Fuel and Power. He has been handed a terrible heritage, and, naturally, it is his task to try to overcome that heritage through sensible planning and through a quick implementation of the Reid Report, which I believe can only be achieved by sensible planning under public ownership.
I agree that we must today address ourselves to the immediate problem. How can we close the gap which the Minister foresaw and emphasised in a previous Debate in this House before the Christmas vacation? How are we to increase production? That is the crisis, and if some good comes out of this Debate it will be

that it focuses public opinion on the importance of winning coal and the importance of the miner's job in this battle for fuel. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will not treat this matter in the party spirit in which it has been treated by the right hon. Member for Woodford, who should know better. I hope they will regard it as a real battle for fuel. We hope that in the next few months, this battle for production will go on, and that we shall see, more coal too, produced by unorthodox methods, such as the opencast operations. I think that, in the last statement of the Minister, he said he budgeted this year for one and a half million tons extra from that source I would like to know if there are further developments in the conversion from coal burning to fuel oil in industry. In the last Debate, we were told that the figure of 3 million tons would be reached. I hope that that process will continue, but we must recognise that the problem is really one of manpower The big job of this Government and, indeed, of the nation, is to find out how to attract new recruits to the industry.
Some hon. Members opposite, and, I am sorry to say, even on this side of the House, talk glibly about dumping foreigners into our midst. I am certain that, if hon. Members were only to look at the problem, they would realise that it is not just a question of getting a bulk supply of labour. That labour must he trained in colliery work. To be a face worker, a man has to be highly skilled. Working at the coal face is a highly technical occupation which can only be performed after long months of training. More than that, hon. Gentlemen should remember that there is still a coal crisis on the Continent. In Czechoslovakia, Germany, France and Italy every available productive worker, like the miner, is a valuable man. Therefore, to talk of bringing a large supply of foreign labour to this country is really not to understand the problem. What we have to do is to encourage men in this country to become miners. What about the idle gentlemen who grace the pages of "The Tatler", the people whose only physical occupation in the past has been to raise a cocktail glass. They are the people we want to attract into the industry: not just the sons of miners, but men of a society from which hon. Members opposite come.
We must give the miner the incentive to work and the opportunity to buy certain luxury goods. The other day, the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) said that we ought to increase the wages in the coalmining industry. I entirely agree with rum. The wages should be increased, particularly those of the face workers. Wages in the mining industry should be the highest of all occupations in this country. We must recognise that the miner occupies an important place in the country and should be appreciated.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I am confident that, with planning under the National Coal Board and with the industry under public ownership, a new spirit will be created. I saw that spirit not so very long ago. On the vesting day, I attended a little ceremony in a colliery village when we hauled the Coal Board flag to the mast. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) laughs; he laughs too often. At that ceremony, and at similar gatherings throughout the coalfields, the miners and their families recognised that that flag is the symbol of a new era in the industry—the end of the long days of unemployment which I knew in the mining village in which I live, the long days of victimisation, and the long days when miners were ostracised by Tory Governments which probably the parents of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and he himself defended. That is an era that has gone, and the Coal Board flag is really a symbol of something new and better. I only wish, as I said today in a supplementary question, that hon. Members opposite were as patriotic in this crisis as are the coalminers.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I hope that the House will forgive me if I diverge for a moment from the main current of this Debate in order to discuss a matter which, I frankly confess, affects me personally, and into which, I think. a large element of public interest also enters. It has been announced this evening that the whol of the weekly Press of this country is to be suppressed or suspended for a period of at least two weeks. That includes—and this is what particularly concerns and interests me—papers of opinion like the "Economist," which is so freely and rightly quoted on

all benches in this House, the "New Statesman," which has many admirers and supporters on the opposite side-of the House, and, I doubt not also on this side, the "Spectator," about which I will say nothing, and papers like "Time and Tide," "Tribune" and so on.
Let me say at once that if it is in the public interest that this should happen, we will all lay our heads uncomplainingly on the block, but I submit it is essential in the public interest that this should not happen. It seems to me deplorable in the last degree that, at a time like this, in a crisis almost unprecedented in our history, those papers which do endeavour to express responsible opinion and guide the public to the best of their ability, should be forbidden to appear. I do not want to make any high claims for those papers, but I believe they have a considerable value which is not to be measured by the standard of their circulation. These are papers every copy of which passes through a number of hands, and many of them are posted abroad. It has been rightly said that the most important of our exports is coal. That, no doubt, is true, but I suggest that another valuable export is opinion, provided that it is right opinion— whatever interpretation may be put on that adjective. These papers have been publishing airmail editions and building up circulations in the United States of America. It seems to me deplorable that at this juncture they should not be allowed to carry to that country their views on this crisis in our country.
I realise the difficulties which face Ministers. It will be said that there is no way to draw the line, that they cannot allow a certain number of papers to appear while forbidding the others, and that there is no room for discrimination. That depends, of course, upon how one defines discrimination. The "News of the World" with its seven million circulation—and with a seven million circulation it must use a good deal of electricity—is to be free to pursue its civilising mission, while the "New Statesman," "Spectator" and so on, are to be suspended. We have heard that the "Radio Times" is excluded from this suspension [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I was about to ask that myself. The daily programmes are given in quite sufficient fullness in the daily papers. I have no desire to cramp the style of the B.B.C. but it seems to


me that a rich monopoly is gaining considerable favour as compared with these free and independent newspapers whose existence was so strongly advocated during the Press Debate last October.
I realise the difficulty in which Ministers stand. I speak with some feeling, because so far as the "Spectator" is concerned, I think that for 118 years it has never failed to appear in a single week; even in the General Strike it produced a pallid simulacrum, a roneo sheet, just to preserve the sequence uninterrupted. The same can be said of the "Economist," which has existed for over roc years. I do not wish to be critical, still less complaining, without being constructive. I would suggest that it would be possible, without undue discrimination, to allow these particular newspapers whose names I have mentioned, and probably one or two others, to continue publication. It is well recognised in the journalistic world and, I think, recognised among those who read serious papers, that there are half a dozen organs of opinion which stand in a peculiar category, which certainly would not consume a large amount of electricity because their total circulation is not great, and which have a special part to play, particularly at a juncture like this.
The suggestion I make to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should ask three Members from any part of this House or, better still, invite you, Mr. Speaker, to name three Members in any part of the House to draw up a list of half a dozen papers whose continued publication is regarded as necessary in the public interest at this time. If my own paper were not in this list, I would cheerfully accept the verdict, but I do submit that that suggestion should be considered. Speaking objectively, I feel that the total disappearance for two weeks of papers which endeavour to approach public questions in the spirit of the papers which I have mentioned would be a disaster to which we need not necessarily be condemned.

9.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): We are discussing today a very serious—and I use the word deliberately—situation. Before I speak on its other aspects I should say, in reply to the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), that the

fact that it should have been necessary to discuss the question of the temporary suspension, even for a brief period, of the publication of many of these important organs of opinion illustrates the serious situation in which we find ourselves. My information comes to me at the last moment, on the bench here; I naturally had to inquire about it when the hon. Member raised the point; I was not aware he was going to raise it, but I make no complaint. I merely make this explanation why I cannot reply in detail on this matter. I understand there have been some discussions this afternoon between representatives of the papers and the Government Departments concerned, and that an agreement has been reached, for the time being at any rate, with the trade association, that all periodicals will appear this week, but then for two weeks will be suspended. That is an arrangement reached only this afternoon, and everything is open for reconsideration as we move forward during this difficult time. The hon. Member will not expect me, at this stage, to say more than that. It definitely is not the wish of the Government to impose any restrictions other than those which are necessitated by the situation in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Wilson Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, quite correctly stated the position, but I am sure he will not suggest for a moment that this was an arrangement entered into voluntarily and cheerfully, by the papers in question?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly not. That is where, for the moment, the discussions have led us. I repeat, all these matters must remain open for reconsideration at short intervals during this period which we hope, for reasons that I will indicate before I sit down, will not be perhaps, of such long duration as some panicmongers have suggested. I deliberately chose the word "serious," and did not choose a more melodramatic word to describe this situation. It is a serious situation, but it does not call for panicmongering, nor for silly exaggeration. I was shocked when somebody suggested that it is the most serious period we have had to go through for 20 years. I am told the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said so. Well, there has been a war in the interval. And even before the war there were periods when—

Mr. Grimston: For the sake of accuracy, might I say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said it was the most serious industrial crisis we had had to go through in the last 20 years?

Mr. Dalton: All right, let it be that, If it is qualified by the epithet "industrial," it is an equally fantastic statement to make, because, during all the prewar years the industrial state of this country was such that it would not have been able to generate a shortage of fuel—the productive capacity of the country was kept so low, and the mass of unemployment was kept at such a figure that we were never short of coal in those days. I say—and here I repeat—that this topic which we are now discussing, seriously and objectively, has been subjected to the most fantastic and ludicrous exaggeration by a great number of people in a great many parts of the country, who ought to know better.
I would like to say a word or two about the situation which my right hon. Friend has had to face during the year 1946, and especially at the beginning of the winter. As has been said, in most admirable speeches of different types, by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Workington (Captain Peart), this all dates back a long, long way, and it is impossible to discuss the matter simply in the light of the events. of the past few weeks or months. It has ancient roots. I will recapitulate very briefly the essential figures which we had to watch and have regard to, the figures of distributed stocks and, in particular, stocks of the electrical power stations. I will select these from the aggregate of stocks. Distributed stocks are subject, as the House knows, to seasonal rhythm. In the summer they are built up, and in the winter they are run down, due to the fact that it has been the practice and experience for many years that more coal is produced in the summer than is consumed, while in the winter consumption rises and demands on stocks are increased. Every year we have this movement.

Sir W. Darling: Amazing.

Mr. Dalton: In November, 1944, distributed stocks were 18 million tons—I give the figures to the nearest million in each

Case—which, by April, 1945; had fallen to 10 million. I pause at this moment to observe that this very large depletion of the stocks—nearly by half—had taken place before His Majesty's present Government came into office. From November, 1944, to April, 1945, there was a decline in the stocks from 18 million to 10 million tons. That was part of our heritage, the latest chapter of our heritage, when we took over from the last pre-Labour Government.

Mr. Clement Davies: Not the last.

Mr. Dalton: There was the "caretaker" Government; but there is really nothing to argue about. Such distributed stocks fell from 18 million tons in November, 1944, to 10 million tons—in the course of the ordinary movement in that year—to 10 million tons in 1945. They rose to just under 14 million by November, 1945, and declined in April, 1946, to the very low, the uncomfortably low, figure of rather more than 6,000,000 tons. We succeeded in building them up again through that summer to a total of between 10 million and 2 million tons—to 10,400,000—by November, 1946; but since then during the winter they have been declining. This seasonal movement has brought stock down each Year to a lower level than that in the year before. I come to the power station stocks. We were asked about electricity, and it is very proper to consider it. The stocks at power stations have declined in the following way. In December, 1944, there were 3,250,000 tons in stock at the power stations. In December, 1945, the figure had fallen to 2,800,000 tons. In December, 1946, to 1,600,000 tons, to two and a half weeks' supply.
This was the background against which this problem has arisen. I say frankly—and I do not think anyone will contradict this statement—that we had had no previous experience of full employment in time of peace.[Interruption] None under Tory rule.

Mr. Eden: What about now?

Mr. M. Lindsay: Four million unemployed today.

Mr. Dalton: Better not judge too quickly It may be all over in a week or two—and what a pity that would be from the point of view of the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill: How dare the right hon. Gentleman appeal to us to aid him in raising his savings certificates, and then use language of that kind?

Mr. Dalton: We can all join in stoking up a fire if we set ourselves to do so. I said—as is true and will not be denied—that full employment in time of peace is a new experience. I was going on to add—there is nothing to which the right hon. Gentleman need take exception in this; he should not really object to what I am now saying—that, consequently, it was not possible for any person, however expert, in any political party, Government Department, or industrial establishment, to make an accurate assessment.

Mr. Churchill: One moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will do me the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we wish to see things grow worse in order to make political capital. I assure you that that is not true.

Hon. Members: Withdraw

Mr. Dalton: I think this is really needless heat; but I am very happy to reply at once to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that, of course, I did not for a moment mean that that was so—[HON. MEMBERS:" You did."] May I complete my sentence? —in his case, or in that of leading Members on his side. But we must take notice of certain appearances of pleasure and delight which have manifested themselves recently among some members—a small minority—in his party, and in some organs of the Press. Of course, it is my hope, as I am sure it is the right hon. Gentleman's, that we shall be able to cooperate, as we are seeking to do in this Debate.

Mr. Churchill: No coalition.

Mr. Dalton: This will be bad news for the "Daily Mail," but it saves me perhaps from having to deny rumours—baseless, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said—which have been circulating in certain quarters in the last week. The point which I was seeking to make was that it was not surprising that, given that we had full employment for the first time in peace, calculations have not been wholly accurate. It is also the case, though I do not make too much of an excuse of this matter, that the weather has not been uniformly good lately; and that has had a

certain effect, indirect no doubt in some respects, both upon the production of coal at the pits and upon its distribution.
I wish to say a word or two first upon what has been done by the Government to try to relieve the position, and secondly upon what we intend to do in future. With regard to what has been done, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has given an account of what he has achieved in his Department. My right hon. Friend has had a hard job. He has inherited a difficult inheritance, and in my view he has done excellent work in seeking to deal with this position; and so have other Members of the Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. One of the major aspects of this problem is transport, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has succeeded in getting more coal moved by the railways in these difficult times than could have been thought possible, in the view of the difficulties of the weather, the freezing up of the lines, and so on. There is also a very grave practical problem we have been facing, as regards the necessary repairs to wagons and locomotives, which have been largely worn out during the war; and here, too, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Supply, and the Royal Ordnance factories, have been making a most fine contribution, as a result of which we have more rolling stock on the lines, carrying coal, than would have been the case but for these efforts.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Why, then, do you export them?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question. I think that credit should be given, in the midst of any party turmoil, which anybody, including myself, may be responsible for stirring up, though this problem should be well above party, to those people who have borne the brunt of this work during these past weeks. I think that we should all pay our tribute to the work of the railways, which have moved this coal in very difficult conditions indeed. [An HON. MEMBER: "A disgrace to the country."] No doubt they will be able to do a bit better when they are nationalised; but for the time being, the railway men are doing as good a job as is possible in present circumstances, and we should take off our hats to them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was interested, very naturally, in what was said this afternoon about the ships, the colliers, and so on. My right hon. Friend said that we are doing our best to turn them round as quickly as possible, and there, too, very fine and excellent work has been done. I was reading yesterday a report about Captain Murray, of South Shields, master of the "Ethylene," which was carrying coal on Saturday from the North-East coast to Nine Elms pier. He stated that it was the coldest weather he had ever experienced in 26 years at sea, and that neither he nor his crew had been to bed since Wednesday. These men also deserve the thanks of all of us, regardless of any party sentiments which we may have. In this same field I place the miners. I have the latest figures, which I think will be of interest to the House. Last week the coal mines were largely blocked by snow, not only falls of snow around the pit-heads in many parts of the country, but falls of snow which greatly impeded transport and the movement of the men from their homes to their places of work. In the Yorkshire field, the snowfall was so heavy that tunnels were blocked, and troops were turned out for clearance work, and a lot of these men had to fight through snow drifts six to eight feet deep to their places of work, large numbers being unable 'to get there. In the country as a whole, the output last week was over 3,500,000 tons. The actual figure was 3,530,000 tons, including opencast output of 120,000 tons. This was a very fine performance indeed, for which we are bound to thank the miners. These workers are not demoralised by what is happening, and it is a gross and fantastic exaggeration to compare this inconvenience, serious and troublesome though it is. with what we went through during the war—

Mr. Eden: Who was responsible for that exaggeration?

Mr. Dalton: I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman's own speech.[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?" If Members opposite will read the Press of last weekend, they will have no difficulty in finding out. So far, I have been speaking of what is being done. Now let us look to the future. Clearly, the one thing that cannot he permitted to happen again is

for us to have total stocks so law at the beginning of the winter. Whatever steps are necessary to prevent that, they must be taken. That means that during the summer months, when production exceeds consumption, we must make sure that stocks are built up. We must not again enter a winter with grossly insufficient stocks. The means to prevent this must be worked out, and can be discussed in this House. Certainly, it will mean that restrictions will have to be placed on the great increase in the domestic use of electricity and gas, which has gone beyond what is reasonable in our present situation. Steps will have to be taken to put a limit on this increase. In other respects, a scheme of allocation, or if you like, rationing, as between industrial consumers will have to be worked out, having regard to the experience which we are now facing. Whatever happens to consumption, it must be adjusted to production in such a way as to keep our stocks adequate when we enter the winter period. If we are able to build up a volume of production during the months ahead of us, we shall not have the drag on us which we have had during recent years—

Mr. Churchill: You will not do it again?

Mr. Dalton: The right hon. Gentleman has put it very exactly. This must not be permitted to happen again. We shall, of course, count upon the cooperation, or, if that is too ambiguous a word, upon the reasonable support of the Opposition, in all measures calculated to achieve that end. As well as assenting to the end, they must all assent to the means.
I do not know whether this Debate is the veritable Vote of Censure by the Opposition or not. I do not know whether, just before Ten o'clock, they will divide, or whether they will put the Vote of Censure off for another day—

Mr. Churchill: For another day.

Mr. Dalton: Each day, as we go forward, will, I hope, show us a little more clearly the exact magnitude of this situation. We are hopeful that with a little assistance from the weather, not to speak of the Opposition, the difficulties may not be of very long duration. None the less, the Government and all of us are anxious to draw from this incident its proper lesson. We have all been warned that there must be, on the one hand, a greater


production of coal and, on the other, a better adjustment of the demand for it. I hope that the Opposition do not dissent from the proposition that we hold—that an increase in the rate of production of coal since 1st January will be effected. First January was the day which marked the opening of a new chapter—whether for better or worse, but we believe for better —in the history of the mines; and we believe that the biggest single contribution to the solution of this difficulty which we have been discussing today is to get a sustained increase in the output of coal from the pits, now nationally owned. To this we must give our closest attention, as the National Coal Board, and the other agencies, know that my right hon. Friend will do.
The right hon. Gentleman made a statement earlier, which has removed many doubts that have existed in certain quarters. This Government will do its utmost in this field, as in others, to achieve the national interest.' This Government, supported by this majority elected at the last Election—this Government undivided, undefeated, and, as we are now assured, undiluted—and we ourselves would always prefer to take the drink neat—this Government will do their best to do their duty in this particular problem, as in others; and we appeal, not on any party lines, to the good will of all men and women who have shown their patriotism in the past, and who desire to help to get their country out of a tight fix now.

9.57 P.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am sure that the House will forgive me when I say that the speech to which we have just listened from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one that was totally unworthy of a serious occasion. There are, at this moment, between two million and four million unemployed in this country. That is the least part of the mischief. In my own house—and I only mention this because it is characteristic of the feeling of many millions of anxious parents in the country—there is a little baby, three weeks old. That baby's nursery is heated by electricity, which has been cut off during certain hours of the day [Interruption] May I appeal to your protection, Mr. Speaker? The right hon. Gentleman, in these circumstances, which are repeated in countless homes in this country, has thought fit to taunt us with wanting this dreadful situation to continue. The right

hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself. He has utterly failed to answer the case made against him.
The Government have a few simple questions to answer. Did they or did they not know that a crisis was coming on? If not, how do they account for their lack of foresight? If they did know, as every one else knew—apart from the Minister—that a crisis was certain to occur, why was not better preparation made to meet it? A great leader of the Opposition once described the Treasury Bench as "A range of extinct volcanoes" I prefer myself to borrow the felicitous phrase of the right hon. Gentleman himself. It is a poor bag of assets, and in that poor bag of assets there are a couple of empty-headed braggart— [Interruption.]My abilities—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not understand why the hon. Member has risen. He has no further right to speak now. The House has passed on to the Orders of the Day. As it is after Ten o'clock, the hon. Member's right to speak is exhausted.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order, Sir. I rose because I understood that the Debate was on the Motion for the Adjournment and that after the hour of ten had been reached, the Question would be proposed again.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I had disposed of that quite clearly the other day when a Minister rose to continue his speech when I called the Orders of the Day. The last half-hour is Private Members' half-hour, and is sacrosanct to them.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide, amongst other things, for the establishment of a British Electricity Authority and Area Electricity Boards and for the exercise and performance by that Authority and those Boards and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board of


functions relating to the supply of electricity, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the principal of and interest on stock issued by the said Authority or the principal of and interest on moneys temporarily borrowed by the said Authority or any Area Electricity Board, so, however, that the amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of the stock so issued, otherwise than for the purpose of paying compensation under the said Act, and in respect of any moneys temporarily borrowed as aforesaid do not at any time exceed the sum of seven hundred million pounds, excluding amounts outstanding in respect of stock issued or moneys temporarily borrowed for the purpose of redeeming stock or repaying moneys temporarily borrowed;
(b)the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the principal of and interest on any loan raised by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, or of either the principal thereof or the interest thereon, so, however, that the aggregate of the amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of any stock issued for the purpose of raising any such loan (other than stock issued to the British Electricity Authority in respect of compensation paid by that Authority under the said Act) and of any moneys temporarily borrowed by the said Board do not at any time exceed the sum of one hundred million pounds excluding stock issued and moneys temporarily borrowed for the purpose of redeeming stock or repaying moneys temporarily borrowed;
(c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) remuneration and allowances to, and expenses of, stockholders' representatives appointed under the said Act;
(ii) remuneration and allowances to any auditor appointed under the said Act to ascertain sums payable to stockholders' representatives;
(iii) remuneration and allowances to members and officers of the arbitration tribunal appointed under the said Act and to persons to whom proceedings are referred by that tribunal, and any other expenses of that tribunal;
(iv) fees and allowances to any referee or board of referees appointed under the said Act to decide questions relating to the rights of or in respect of officers, and allowances to witnesses appearing before any referee or board;
(v) pensions to persons who have been Electricity Commissioners or officers of the Electricity Commissioners;
(vi) the administrative expenses incurred under the said Act by any Minister of the Crown or Government department;
(d) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under or by virtue of the said Act by any Minister of the Crown or Government department."

Resolution agreed to

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell]

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I am glad to have the opportunity tonight of raising a matter which is causing very great concern in Scotland, namely, the increasing number of unemployed. During the past year, the number registered as unemployed in Scotland has increased from 54,000 to 78,000, not including those temporarily stopped. The number of men and women unemployed for periods longer than eight weeks has increased from 37,000 to 40,000 in the last six months. During the past three months, the number of men unemployed for over six months has increased from 12,900 to 14,200. These figures indicate that there has been a steady deterioration in the unemployment situation in Scotland during the past 12 months. We would like some information about this tonight, and some information as to what is being done to meet this situation.
Last year, on 14th May and 14th October, in the House, the President of the Board of Trade gave figures indicating that his Department lad approved of projects for Scotland which would provide work for some 60,000 workers by the end of December. I understand from this week's "Board of Trade Journal" that projects have now been approved to give work for approximately 71,000 workers. We were told in May by my right hon. Friend that work in connection with these projects would be complete in a number of cases, and that work would have been found by December for some 35,000. It was stated that by December these projects would have a material effect on the unemployment situation in Scotland, and would, in fact, this year be contributing substantially towards a remedy in Scotland. In view of the fact that the unemployment figure is now higher than it has ever been since the war, it would appear that something has gone wrong with these plans of the Board of Trade.
I should like to ask in the first place how many jobs have actually been provided in Scotland by these projects up to the end of 1946; secondly, to what extent has the programme fallen short of what was aimed at; and, thirdly, why has this failure to achieve the target been brought about


when we might now expect that the efforts of the Board of Trade will, in fact, contribute towards solving the problem in Scotland. If it is going to be some time before this happens I should like to ask whether any measures have been taken to provide work for the men at present unemployed. We cannot say to men unemployed at the present time that it is all right, for something will be done in a year or two's time. These men want work now. If we analyse the figures for the unemployed we find that during the past year the increase has been wholly in connection with men. The number of men has increased from 31,000 to 58,000, but, on the other hand, the number of females unemployed has fallen from 22,000 to 19,000. One of the criticisms that has frequently been made in connection with these projects approved by my right hon. Friend is that in a large measure they are projects designed to give employment for women, and there is a grave danger now that there will be a shortage of female labour in Scotland, whilst at the same time the number of men seeking work increases.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what is being done about this. Is the Board of Trade now trying to get into the development areas any particular kind of employment that will provide work for men? These projects approved by the Board of Trade are in the development areas and rightly so, but we cannot ignore the fact that unemployment is also increasing in a large number of centres outside the development areas. If we look at the figures in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette "for this month we find the area in which the largest percentage of increase has taken place is in Edinburgh and Leith at the Edinburgh Exchange. We should like to have some information as to what is being done in connection with this. Unemployment has almost trebled itself in Edinburgh, despite the optimistic review in the "Board of Trade Journal," during the past 12 months.
I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), who has been very active in this connection, would also like to have some information as to what is being done in connection with Leith because the position there is acute. There are also other areas north of the industrial belt in Scotland: what is the Department doing to encourage industry in those areas? I read with great

interest the article in the "Board of Trade Journal" for the current week dealing with this question. It is a very optimistic article and says that prospects have never been better during the past 50 years. But prospects are not enough, we want jobs, not prospects. We have had very optimistic prospects held before us during the past year and let me say, quite frankly, that I think they represent a considerable achievement, and one which is unparalleled during the past 5o years so far as Scotland is concerned. But prospects do not help men to obtain work at the present time, and it is that about which we should like something done.
Here I should like to introduce the question of steel. I know that it really comes under the Minister of Supply and I should have liked to see the Parliamentary Secretary here, but, although I gave him notice that I was raising the matter, unfortunately he could not be present. There is a great shortage of steel in the development areas today, and I think my hon. Friends who represent those areas would bear this out. In a reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) last week we were told that we could expect no reorganisation or development of the steel industry in Scotland for some time. It seems to me to be fundamental to a prosperous economy in Scotland that we should at least have one basic industry, efficient and well organised, and that this is necessary for the success of the development areas themselves. I should like to ask my hon. Friend what action he has taken to see that this matter is dealt with, because we on these benches at least are very much concerned with the matter.
So far as I have been able to judge, it appears to me that the present policy of the Board of Trade is mainly a negative one—one of direction. Incidentally, I think that, inasmuch as it is a negative policy, it helps to delay action in Scotland. We have cases of business men wishing to start businesses in Edinburgh and in the Lothians, but instead of being assisted to do so they are given to understand by the Board of Trade that they cannot be assisted to start in those areas although if they go to the west of Scotland they will be helped there. The result is that instead of going ahead with the establishment of his business the person concerned usually messes around or tries to explore different


channels in order to get his business started, which of course delays the process for several months, know of one or two cases in which that has occurred, and I am sure that other hon. Members know of similar instances. We cannot wait indefinitely while private enterprise is cajoled into starting the right type of industry in the development areas, or while the Scottish Council of Industry, for instance, tours the world trying to persuade foreign private enterprise to come to Scotland in order to start industries. Nor can we afford, at the end of the day, to have a large, hard core of unemployment of some 12,000 to 15,000 men, which appears to be likely judging from the indications at the present time.
These would appear to be the results of the policy that is at present being operated by my hon. Friend's Department, and I would ask him therefore, in conclusion, not merely to treat this matter urgently—because it is urgent—but also to try to work along lines of a more positive character. I would suggest to him that, in cooperation with the other Ministries concerned, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Labour and the Secretary of State for Scotland, he should work along rather more positive lines that will achieve results in a much shorter time than at present.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words on the unemployment problem in Scotland. I would say to the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench tonight that there is room for grave disquiet. If there is one thing to which Scotland does not wish to return it is the appalling unemployment of the prewar era. In my constituency of Leith we had approximately 28 per cent. of our insured population unemployed at one time, and as a result misery was spread throughout the area. While today the problem is incomparably easier, there has been a steady rise in the unemployment figures, and I want to ask the Minister now if he will give a little more of his attention to areas not yet specified as development areas, although I must say, in passing, that I have not entirely given up hope that we may even achieve that for my area.
However, it causes us some concern that while the total unemployment figures

in Leith at December, 1945, were 386, the total unemployed figure for men has jumped from 530 in January of last year to 1,250 at the end of December. This undoubtedly causes a great deal of uneasiness, and I have to the best of my ability brought the matter before the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Fuel and Power. I will admit that if we could step up coal exports, we might return to the old days when Leith was exporting 2 million tons of coal as against the 165,000 tons which she is handling today. If I have dealt with my constituency, it is mainly because it is similar to many other areas in Scotland and, of course, outside in the development areas.
I approached the Board of Trade in the latter part of 1945, and was told by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor that we were not to depend entirely on what the Board of Trade could provide in the way of industry; that he had every sympathy with our case, but, if we could use a little local initiative, we might achieve some results I want to say to my hon. Friend that we have tried locally to establish new factories—wire works, a paper shavings company which is a very big one—we have tried in all sorts of directions. Occasionally we have been successful in obtaining a building licence, but when we have applied for some priority, this has been denied us outside of a W.B.B. priority, and this, the Parliamentary Secretary must know, amounts to very little in these days of scarcity. What we are asking is that to these areas which have suffered so badly in the past, some special priority ought to be given in view of the increasing unemployment in these areas.
There are two other small points with which I must deal in the minute which remains to me. They are these. Undoubtedly in an area such as my own we depend greatly on shipbuilding, and the deplorable state of the steel industry in Scotland is having its repercussions on us. The largest firm of shipbuilders have told me that they cannot get their steel supplies from Scotland owing to the condition of our steel industry, and they are more and more depending on obtaining supplies from England. We cannot have this hold-up in the steel industry because it has repercussions on the shipbuilding industry and, as such, is bound to worsen the position in my area. The same can


be said of timber, but I have said sufficient, I hope, to convince the Parliamentary Secretary that some special attention must be given, and must be given now, to areas such as Leith, and other areas in Scotland that are feeling the draught of unemployment so badly at the present time.

10.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I hasten to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) that it is not really necessary to appeal to me to give special attention to the problem of unemployment in Scotland. There is no subject about which I am concerned at the Board of Trade which gives me more food for thought than the problem of unemployment, particularly in the development areas including the Scottish development area, and those areas of Great Britain where unemployment was severe in between the two wars and is severe today. I would like to take this opportunity of saying that, quite apart from the Board of Trade, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is unremitting in his endeavours to secure some benefit for the country he represents.

Sir William Darling: Unemployment goes up.

Mr. Belcher: Unemployment goes up because plans made by this Government to deal with the unemployment situation—which we knew would grow when the artificial prosperity induced by the war vanished with the ending of hostilities—have not yet had time to mature. One cannot plan and build factories, induce industrialists to go to those factories, instal machinery and employ the unemployed in a matter of a few weeks or months—

Sir W. Darling: It was done in 1939

Mr. Belcher: —especially when one has to face raw materials difficulties of the kind we have had to face. But we have made strenuous efforts, and, if I had more time I would like to develop the story of the efforts which have been made. Figures have been quoted tonight which do not, with all respect, give the full picture. Our target, which we have set ourselves, which we hope to achieve, is to provide for 145,000 more jobs than existed in Scotland prior to the war, 85,000 for men and 60,000 for women.

At the end of 1946 we had created or approved schemes which will provide jobs for 104,000 or more people. They have not provided those jobs so far because the factories are not completed and the people are not working there, but, nevertheless, the factories are being built, or will be built, and those jobs will be in existence. They were not there before the war.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend has quoted figures, but the figure's which I quoted from the "Board of Trade Journal" for this week for the period mentioned by my hon. Friend are quite different from those he has just mentioned.

Sir W. Darling: Impossible.

Mr. Willis: The figures for Scotland as printed in the Journal are: Projects located in Development Areas—Total employment 62,000; projects located outside Development Areas, Scotland, 9,000, making a total of 71,000 approved by the end of 1946.

Mr. Belcher: I hope my hon. Friend will not interrupt me too often, because I have only five or six minutes before we finish. He may take it that the figures have given are accurate and up-to-date. The figures he has quoted may be some weeks old. The delay is accounted for by the time it takes to get them printed in the "Board of Trade journal" As I have already told the House, we have approved a further number of factories in advance of demand from industrialists which we hope will provide jobs for another 12,000 people, in addition to Government-owned munition factories, which will provide another 5,000 jobs. All this is straining our position of raw materials and building labour, and delays must be expected to accrue because of the general strain on building materials and labour, to which must be added the present difficulties arising out of the coal situation.
My hon. Friend who opened this Debate mentioned the employment provided for women, as against that provided for men. That is our difficulty in all the development areas. It is so much easier to find new industries which will provide employment for women, than it is to find industries which will provide employment for men, for the reason that during the war the lighter industries—particularly those making consumer goods—were contracted, while the heavy engineering indus—


tries, providing work for men, were expanded. Now the war is over, there is no longer the need to expand the heavy industries and provide employment for men, but to expand the consumer industries. Therefore, it is easier to find industries in the development areas which will provide employment for women. We realise that to cure the Scottish unemployment problem, we have to find work for men, and we are doing everything in our power to provide that employment. The means at our disposal are two. We can dissuade, or stop, heavy industry going where we do not want it to go, and persuade it to go where it is wanted. The Distribution of Industry Act does not give us coercive powers; it gives persuasive powers. We have the power of licensing, which helps us to persuade people from going into areas where we do not want them to go.
The subject of persuading people to go into areas other than development areas has been mentioned. We are aware that there are areas in Britain, in Scotland as well as elsewhere, where there is an unemployment problem outside the development areas. Whilst these areas may not be scheduled as development areas, when we find a problem growing up there, we apply to such areas such help as we may be able to apply in order to assist in the solution of this difficulty. It is possible for us to make some discrimination in the matter of the supply of raw materials, and in the obtaining of building licences. The hon. Member mentioned the subject of steel, and was good enough to tell the House that that was not a subject with which I could deal, but was a matter for the Minister of Supply. He referred to a Question asked by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 3rd February to which the answer was given that the various proposals for the modernisation and development of the industry in Scotland and elsewhere are being carefully examined by the Iron and Steel Board. There are difficulties which will be well known by the hon. Member. I can only promise him that I will see that the Minister of Supply is acquainted with his wishes. and I will—as I am doing all the time—consult with the Minister of Supply and the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to doing whatever can he done to assist industrial development in that country.
In conclusion, I say to both hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate that I regard the application of the Distribution of Industry Act of 1945 as possibly the most important job which I have to undertake at the Board of Trade. I am regularly in consultation with the Secretary of State, with the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Transport, and with all the other Ministries whose Departments bear any relation to the industrial situation in Scotland, with a view to doing whatever can be done to remedy what is now an unsatisfactory position, and which allowed to deteriorate, would become most unsatisfactory. It will be well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scotland that I have on several occasions, paid visits to Scotland, with a view to finding out for myself at first-hand what is the situation, what needs to be done, and what can be done. I can only promise that my efforts in the future in that direction will be as unremitting as they have been in the past.

10.29 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In the moment or two that is left I should like to say that we are very grateful to the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) for having raised this very important question, and also to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy).I must say straight away that I think it deplorable that the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the Joint Under-Secretaries is not present on such an important occasion for Scotland. I am afraid that a good deal of this trouble of unemployment in Scotland is because the Secretary of State is not pulling his weight with other Departments. When I mentioned this question in the House a short time ago he replied that it was not the concern of his Department. I cannot help feeling that if that is the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland, it accounts for the fact that our situation as regards unemployment is rapidly getting worse.
I admit that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is doing very excellent work for us and endeavouring to do so, but I do not think it is primarily the concern of the Board of Trade that Scottish industry should be put on its feet; that is primarily a matter for Scotland itself and for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not think the Secretary of State is doing his job in that respect, and


I have no hesitation in saying so. We are grateful in Scotland that the Board of Trade is taking such an interest, and I very much hope that interest will continue. I am sure it will, but I think It requires to be put on record that the Secretary of State is not doing his job so fat as employment is concerned, because he

is not giving the drive of his Department, to back up the others, who are doing their best.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER pursuant to the Standing Order.

BRITISH MUSEUM (PETITION)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have annually to submit to this House, explaining the financial position and praying foe aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried out without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support toward enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed m them by Parliament, fog the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

Sir William Darling: May a question be asked with regard to this?
Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

ROAD TRANSPORT NATIONALISATION (PETITIONS)

Mr. Max Aitken: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition -signed by 145,000 persons principally residing in the Metropolitant area, asking that proposals for the nationalisation of transport may be re-

jected. The petitioners draw attention to the expansion of road transport under present arrangements, and claim that its growth and efficiency are due to the initiative and enterprise of the persons heretofore engaged in the industry. They fear that nationalisation of road transport may cause a serious loss of efficiency and will result in unnecessary cost. The Petition concludes with the following Prayer:
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that the proposals for the nationalisation of road transport may be rejected.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to ask leave to present a humble Petition signed by over 17,000 members of 28 Chambers of Commerce, users of transport. They express strong objection to the proposals for the nationalisation of transport, which will restrict freedom of choice by traders in the matter of transport facilities, and deny the rights of the users of transport to carry their goods without restriction under C licences. They state that there has been no evidence from industry and commerce in favour of the Measure now before Parliament. The Petition concludes with the following Prayer:
Wherefore your Petitioner s humbly pray your honourable House to reject the Transport Bill which threatens disaster to industry.
Petitions to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers (Equal Pay)

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement regarding arrangements to implement the policy of equal pay for equal work for members of the teaching profession.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) on 19th December last.

Mr. Macpherson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he appreciates that the principle of equal pay for equal work has already been accepted by the Government in the payment of Members of Parliament


and even of Cabinet Ministers, as well as in many of lie professions, and, as our new Minister of Education, will he promise to do his best to try to establish this long overdue reform so far as the teaching profession is concerned?

Mr. Tomlinson: Again, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer previously given, which takes all those things into consideration.

Leaving Age

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Education whether all children who attain the age of 14 years by 31st March will be able to leave school by the end of the term that finishes at Easter, 1947.

Mr. Tomlinson: A child who attains the age of 14 during a school term is deemed by reason of Section 8 (1) of the Education Act, 1946, not to have attained that age until the end of the term. Any child attaining the age of 14 during a school term which ends on or after 1st April next will have to remain at school to the end of the term in which he or she attains the age of 15.

School Visits

Mr. Dryden Brook: asked the Minister of Education why, under Regulation 18 (3) of the Primary and Secondary Schools (Grants Conditions) Regulations, the consent of His Majesty's inspectors has to be obtained before the secular instruction in maintained schools can be given off school premises.

Mr. Tomlinson: Since average attendance is no longer a factor in calculating grant to local education authorities, or in determining the grading of a school for the purposes of the head teacher's salary, an important reason for the regulation has ceased to exist. My predecessor had, therefore, decided to revoke it, and I shall shortly be publishing the necessary amending regulation.
The purpose of this change, about which I shall be sending a circular to local education authorities, is to extend to all maintained schools, whether primary or secondary, the freedom, so far as the Ministry's requirements are concerned, in arranging such activities as school visits, that was formerly enjoyed by a limited number of secondary schools under the old regulations for secondary schools.

Drinking Straws

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education if his attention has been called to the difficulty of obtaining straws for children with which to drink milk in the London and extra-Metropolitan areas; and if, for the sake of health and cleanliness, he will take steps to see that straws are supplied to these districts.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir; every possible step is being taken to increase the output of drinking straws for school milk.

College Training (Period)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to give effect to the recommendation of the McNair Committee that the period of college training for intending teachers should be at least three years.

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot yet say when it will be possible to give effect to this recommendation.

Training Grants

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Minister of Education how many ex-Service students are in receipt of grants; and how many have received no payment for the current term.

Mr. Tomlinson: The number of students in receipt of grants before the beginning of the current term was 18,573; in 15,505 of these cases, payments in full have been made. In addition, 6,930 new awards have been announced; in 2,180 of these cases, payment has been made in full, and, in over 2,000 other cases, a payment has been made on account.

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that at University College, London, out of 783 students in receipt of Further Education and Training Grants 433 have not yet received their grants for this term although their attendance forms were returned on 20th January last; that at the Northern Polytechnic, N.7, 200 out of 294 students have not yet received their grants although their forms were returned on 13th January; that a similar situation prevails at many other colleges and universities; and when these grants will be paid.

Mr. Tomlinson: At University College, including the Slade School of Art, and the Bartlett School of Architecture, 578 students were in receipt of grants before


the beginning of the term. Certificates of attendance were received on 21st January and payments were completed on 11th February. In addition, new awards have been announced to 92 students, of whom 67 have now been paid.
At the Northern Polytechnic, 132 students were in receipt of grants before the beginning of the term. Certificates of attendance were received on 23rd January, and payments were made on 15th February. In addition, new awards have been announced to 26 students, of whom four have been paid and the remainder are about to be paid
Payments have now been made to all students who were in receipt of grant at the beginning of this term, in 456 out of 497 institutions, and the remaining 41 will be completed shortly.

Mr. John Paton: asked the Minister of Education what deductions are made from further education and training grants in respect of a student's vacation earnings.

Mr. Tomlinson: If a student holding an award under the Further Education and Training Scheme earns in vacations, half his earnings are deducted from his grant.

Mr. Paton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if, in view of the great national need for maximum productivity, we should not encourage the effective use of every pair of hands, and, in view of that, will he consider either greatly reducing these deductions or abolishing them altogether?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will certainly look at it, but there are more complications than that.

Mr. Frank Byers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider the idea of having this extraordinary means test applied to these grants?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would point out that it is not so much a question of a means test, as of the varying needs of the students.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the Minister recognise that there are very many cases in which these grants are not sufficient for a man during the half-year when the university is not in session, and that,

therefore, it is essential that he should be able to earn?

Mr. Tomlinson: Grants are made to these people on the assumption and on the basis that they will not need to earn, and that is the only basis on which their receipts are taken into account.

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the necessity for schoolboys to plan their careers, he can give an assurance that grants for ex-Servicemen will he continued for the next five years.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. but I expect that an announcement will be made shortly.

Mid-day Break

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Education whether, as a contribution to fuel economy and a convenience to mothers, he will arrange for the midday break in primary and secondary schools to be from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. instead of from 12 noon to 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The arrangements for the mid-day break are within the discretion of local education authorities, governors or managers, as the case may be. I should see no objection to an arrangement of the kind which my hon. Friend suggests.

Transport, Maldon

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Education if he will give further consideration to the possibility of providing special transport for schoolchildren between Bradwell-juxta-Mare and Maldon Grammar School, Essex, since some of them are obliged, by the present inconvenient arrangement, to be away from their homes for nearly 12 hours each school day.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am looking into the position further in consultation with the Regional Transport Commissioner and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Driberg: While my right hon. Friend is looking into the position, will he bear in mind that some of these boys and girls have to leave home at 6.30 a.m. and do not get back until 6 p.m. or after, and, in such circumstances, how can they possibly be expected to do homework?

Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Regional


Transport Commissioner. Has he not also been in contact with the Essex Education Committee?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Leah Manning: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if he finds that the reason is that there is not sufficient ordinary transport, he will suggest to the Education Committee that two or three taxis would do these journeys, and will he remember that boys and especially adolescent girls cannot stand the strain of these long hours?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will take that into consideration when I consult the Committee.

Uncertificated Teachers (Training Colleges)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Education how many places in training colleges he proposes to offer to uncertificated teachers in -September, 1947; and on what basis the selection of applicants is to be made.

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot yet say how many uncertificated teachers it will be possible to admit to special one year courses this autumn. If we fall short of the target of 400 admissions suggested by my predecessor last July, the deficiency will he made good a few months later. The basis of selection will in the main he length of service, subject to the special requirements of particular areas.

Mrs. Manning: May I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need for as much speed in the execution of this work as possible, as, otherwise, we shall lose the enthusiasm and the urge to train which these young people had when these arrangements were first announced?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will.

Emergency Training

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education how many persons have now been accepted for training under the emergency training scheme.

Mr. Tomlinson: Up to 6th February, 38,399 persons had been accepted for Training under the Emergency Training Scheme.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many are already in training?

Mr. Tomlinson: Not without notice.

Huts

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education how many of the temporary H.O.R.S.A. huts have now been erected; and how many it is anticipated will be completed by 1st April and 1st September, respectively.

Mr. Tomlinson: Several hundred H.O.R.S.A. huts are now virtually complete, except for certain components in particularly short supply, and approximately 60 rooms are finally completed. No additional accommodation in H.O.R.S.A. hutting will he required by 1st April. As I indicated last week to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), every effort is being made to complete the total, namely, 2,545 classrooms and 1,081 practical rooms required by 1st September. 1947.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what a H.O.R.S.A. hut is?

Mr. Tomlinson: These are the huts that are being provided under the scheme to enable the age to be raised.

Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the huts which are not finished, but are waiting for accessories, are capable of being used, or whether they will have to be completed before being capable of being used?

Mr. Tomlinson: They may be capable of being used, but, obviously, they can be used to better advantage when all the components are in. We are pressing the Department concerned to provide the components.

Local Authority Staffs

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education the total size of the staff, other than those engaged in teaching, employed by local education authorities today and in the year previous to the war.

Mr. Tomlinson: The total number of employees of county councils and county borough councils in England and Wales, excluding teachers and trading services, is estimated to be approximately 514,000. Separate figures for education services are not available, nor are the corresponding figures for 1939.

Size of Classes

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact


that the contemplated building programme for 1947, summarised in Circular 134, makes no reference to reduction in the size of classes and large numbers of young children will enter primary schools this year, he will now revise that programme.

Mr. Tomlinson: Reduction in the size of classes depends largely on the provision of new accommodation, and, for the present, this has to be restricted to the categories set out in paragraph 4 of Circular 134. These include the provision of new schools to meet housing developments and of additional classrooms to prevent serious overcrowding.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend, at any rate, give it the second priority, after getting ready the huts necessary for raising the school leaving age?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know about the second priority. With regard to the equally important priority which has been given, so far as housing schemes are concerned, that will assist to the extent that the children from overcrowded areas may be moving into the new housing centres.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Am I to understand I the right hon. Gentleman as saying that the shortage of teachers is no impediment to reducing the size of classes, and that the difficulty is solely due to the lack of buildings?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would not say that, but with the number of teachers in training and who are likely to be available in the near future, buildings will be the limiting factor, rather than teachers.

Mr. Butler: Does not the Minister remember that, in the period of evacuation, every sort of building was obtained by the education authorities in which to house the children for school purposes, and could he not, if he has the teachers, make a real attempt to reduce the size of classes by taking every possible building?

Mr. Tomlinson: Where buildings are available, I hope to do that.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the only buildings which are going to be available are the stables referred to in a previous Question?

U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education whether he will publish a detailed Report of the U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference held in Paris last November.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir; a report has been prepared which I hope to present shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD TENURE

Mr. King: asked the Attorney-General when he proposes to introduce legislation to end the system of leasehold tenure.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Consideration is given, as occasion offers, to various proposals for the amendment of the law in relation to leasehold tenure, but I am not convinced that the abolition of this form of land holding, which serves a useful purpose for large numbers of people, would be in the public interest, and there is no present intention of introducing legislation with that object.

Mr. King: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the present system discourages proper attention by those who hold leases and, therefore, is pernicious; and, further, is he not aware that there is a strong feeling throughout the country, and particularly in Cornwall, over this subject?

Mr. Henry Strauss: As Socialists seem to object equally to leasehold tenure and to a man owning his own house, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what land tenure they want?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before my right hon. and learned Friend answers, does he realise that this is a very complicated subject, and will he, before taking any steps, such as that indicated in the Question, consider setting up an expert committee to review the whole subject?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me say that I do not propose to take the step suggested in the Question.

Mr. House: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, notwithstanding the difficulties and the


humour from hon. Members opposite, there is a tremendous demand in the country for an alteration in the system?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman communicate the views expressed behind him to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Bottles (Government Orders)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total grossage of glass bottles ordered by Government Departments during the year 1946; and the comparable figures or 1938.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): 301,200 gross of empty bottles were ordered by Government Departments during 1946. I regret that no comparable figures for 1938 are available.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply mean that there is now a bottleneck in bottles?

Sir S. Cripps: The total production of bottles is 17,500,000 gross.

Auctions (Control)

Mr. Challen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the object of maintaining in force the provision under the Auction and Tender Control Orders which forbids a person to have any of his goods sold by auction if he has had cause to allow to be sold by auction other goods, being goods to which these Orders apply, during the six months immediately preceding the date of the declaration which has to be made prior to any auction; and whether he will review this provision with a view to its abolition in the near future.

Sir S. Cripps: The object of the provision to which the hon. Member refers is to ensure that advantage is not taken of auction facilities to carry on a business of selling goods without complying with Price Control Regulations, which cannot conveniently be applied to auctions. In bona fide cases of disposal of personal effects for which auctions are primarily designed, exemption from the six months requirement is freely given by licence. I am satisfied that the provisions are still

necessary, and the answer to the second part of the Question is accordingly in the negative.

Mr. Challen: All the same, is this not really one of the petty controls that might well be abolished in the very near future?

Sir S. Cripps: For the reasons I have already given, no.

Softwoods

Mr. Morley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts have been made with softwoods exporting countries for sawn softwoods for forward delivery; and how many standards, arid from whom.

Sir S. Cripps: I hope to make a statement on the softwood supply position in the course of the next few weeks when the negotiations of the Timber Control missions in North America have been completed. I am circulating the information for which my hon. Friend has asked in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but he will appreciate that the outstanding balances of contracts with European countries at this particular juncture are relatively small, pending negotiations for the 1947 season which are due to take place next month with both Sweden and Finland.

Following is the information: 


Standards


North America (Negotiations are still in progress).



Sweden
20,000


Finland


Russia
6,000


Germany (United States Zone)
100,000



(subject to periodical confirmation of quantities).


Roumania
10,000


Austria
17,000

Mr. York: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a comparison of the price to the purchaser in this country of softwood in the round and of sawn timber per cubic foot of Scandinavian, German, Canadian and homegrown timber, respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: Taking typical specifications of sawn softwood, the comparative prices per cubic foot to a purchaser in this country are: Scandinavian, 6s.; German, 5s. 7d.; Canadian, 5s. 5d. Home-grown 3s. 11d. to 8s. 6d., according to species, length of seasoning and type of mill in which the softwood was converted. Softwood in the round for conversion is not being imported except from Germany; for


a comparison of the prices of German logs with home-grown logs, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on 6th February.

Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the approximate proportions of the different kinds of timber that we are getting?

Sir S. Cripps: That is quite another question.

Standing Timber (Prices)

Mr. York: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what basis the recent increased prices of timber in the round were calculated; and what factors were taken into account.

Sir S. Cripps: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to standing timber in this country. Since the previous prices were fixed seven years ago, the prices of other materials have risen substantially, as have the costs of maintenance of woods and of replanting. In the absence of detailed costings, the matter had to be dealt with on broad lines, and an increase of 25 per cent. was considered to be fair.

Mr. York: But what about the evidence produced to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the cost of production had increased by 40 per cent.? Did he not take that into account when fixing the increased prices?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, Sir, but we had a lot of evidence of a differing character, and we took it all into account.

Clothing Supplies

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that there is no danger of clothing supplies being insufficient to meet the present coupons owing to the stoppage of production through the coal crisis.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my, hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann) on 13th February.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that there is a growing shortage of small, sizes in the shops, and will he take steps to remedy that?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another point altogether.

Floor Coverings

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is with his authority that inspectors are visiting shops with a questionnaire as to whether they are satisfied with the quality of floor coverings; and whether they have had any complaints from customers.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. Inquiries have been made by officers of my Department who operate under no powers and whose normal work it is to investigate complaints about supplies and shortages of consumer goods. I understand that complaints of the quality of some of the felt base floor covering being sold have been made by customers to retailers.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the result of these inquiries will be quite valueless since the ingredients for the making up of floor coverings and linoleum are all in very short supply?

Sir S. Cripps: I appreciate that fact, but it is valuable to know the results of what is being manufactured.

Fuel Emergency (Production Allocution)

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any changes, in view of the coal crisis, have been made in the allocation of industrial production as between goods for export and the home market; and what effect it can be estimated that such cuts as have been necessary will have on long-term contracts abroad.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) and Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) on Tuesday last.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the opinion is gaining ground in the country that his present policy of "exports come what may" is driving the people of this country into abject poverty, and will he look with a friendly eye on the generous offers now being made in the United States and Dominions to help us in our hour of need?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot agree with the analysis of the noble Lord with regard to the effect of the policy which has so far been pursued. Perhaps he will wait until he sees the Paper on Economic Policy before he makes further similar observations.

Children's Clothes

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of baby linen and small children's clothes in the city of Aberdeen; and if he will increase the supply of these commodities, which are badly needed during the winter, and so alter the points system as to make them available to the public.

Sir S. Cripps: Every effort is being made still further to increase the production of baby linen and small children's clothes, and to keep pace with the steadily rising demand. I have no information that the position in Aberdeen is more difficult than elsewhere or that present pointings prevent the public from buying the supplies which are available.

Mr. Hughes: In fixing points for clothing, particularly children's clothing, will my right hon. and learned Friend have regard to the winter climate on the North-East Coast of Scotland?

Sir S. Cripps: That is one of the matters to which we have regard.

Mr. William Teeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade why Brighton shops are so poorly stocked with youths' and boys' outerwear; and how soon can they expect supplies to be improved.

Sir S. Cripps: I attribute the shortage, which is confined to the better quality outerwear of the school uniform type, to the return of many schools to Brighton. I hope that some further supplies will reach the shops very soon and that, despite production hold-ups, the position will have eased before the next school term.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this case would not have come to his notice without agitation from the town of Brighton and, in the circumstances, has he not somebody in his Department who watches over these matters?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, but one cannot have sufficient people to watch every area all the time.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is any concession which is made to Brighton being extended to other parts of the country?

Sir S. Cripps: This is a special question because a number of schools which moved from Brighton have now returned there Therefore, there is a much larger school population.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that whenever we want a thing we have got to agitate before we can get it?

Educational Books

Mr. King: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that London booksellers are now charging to students for secondhand hooks two or three times the new price; whether he is aware of the hardship thus being imposed upon students; and whether he will, therefore, allocate increased supplies of paper to the publishing trade for printing books essential to university students for the purpose of passing their examinations.

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that the prices of secondhand books are high, but it has not been found possible to make them subject to price control As regards the last part of the Question, book publishers are at present allocated 90 per cent of their prewar consumption of paper; in addition, there is a special, though limited, reserve from which allocations are made for important books for which paper would not otherwise be available. While there is a shortage of educational books, this is due, in general, to a shortage of printing and binding capacity rather than to lack of paper.

Mr. King: Is the Minister aware that students are being examined with text books of which they cannot obtain copies, and will he agree that that is an impossible situation? Also, in view of the fact that the number of students has increased since before the war, will he not agree that prewar standards are not a good guide?

Sir S. Cripps: I quite appreciate the difficulty as regards the shortage of books, and the only thing to do is to borrow one if one cannot buy one.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Be sure to return it.

Rationing (Anonymous Letters)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many anonymous letters are, on average, received each month by his Department about rationing offences being committed by named individuals; and what action his Department takes over such anonymous communications.

Sir S. Cripps: About 200 such letters are received each month and, where they appear to be of substance, the allegations are investigated.

Utility Clothing

Mr. Piratin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the reason for the shortage of clothing workers in the utility side of the clothing industry compared with the abundance of labour on the non-utility side, in view of the fact that no more than 16 per cent. of the production of cloth for the home market is distributed for non-utility manufacture; how this distribution takes place; and what check and control his Department maintains upon it.

Sir S. Cripps: The labour force engaged in the production of utility clothing is in general adequate, having regard to the limited supplies of utility cloth and linings available. The relative proportion of utility and non-utility cloth is planned at the production stage and the results of the planning are checked at frequent intervals. The distribution of both utility and non-utility cloth to the makers-up is left to the trade who supply it against coupons.

Mr. Piratin: Does not the Minister agree that as, apparently, far more than 16 per cent. of the output goes to the non-utility producing firms, this is a case for ensuring that all clothing is utility so that the labour goes into the right channels?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I am afraid I cannot agree.

Mr. Osborne: Does the Minister tell the House that there is adequate labour in the spinning industry?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I have not said that. We are dealing with the making-up trade for clothing.

Mining Areas (Consumer Goods)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he is making arrangements to give priority to coalminers in the allocation of consumer goods.

Sir S. Cripps: Manufacturers and wholesalers were asked last autumn to increase supplies of unrationed household textiles and other household goods to the main mining areas, and these areas have also received preference in the distribution of Government surplus clothing.

Overseas Trade Fairs

Mr. Gammans: asked the President of the Board of Trade why His Majesty's Government have declined the offer of the Soviet Government to participate in the Leipzig fair.

Sir S. Cripps: In accordance with the recommendations of the Ramsden Committee, official participation at trade fairs overseas is now undertaken only in exceptional circumstances, and there has been no such participation since the Committee's report was laid before this House last March. So far as commercial participation is concerned, we have only recently learnt that the Leipzig fair is to be open this year to firms from outside Germany and, as the opening date is 4th March, it would scarcely be possible for firms in this country to organise exhibits in time.

Children's Wellingtons

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the special difficulty in obtaining children's Wellington boots experienced by parents living in remote rural areas who are unable to pay frequent visits to shops in search of these scarce goods; and if, in view of the greater need for such boots in muddy country lanes than in urban streets, he will endeavour to make special arrangements to meet this need.

Sir S. Cripps: When supplies of children's Wellingtons improved sufficiently to allow the dropping of formal priority schemes, the trade were asked to pay special attention to the needs of rural areas. I believe that this arrangement has proved generally satisfactory, but I will certainly look into any special cases which my hon. Friend will send to me.

Confectionery Exports (Dollar Countries)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the list of countries to which chocolate and sugar confectionery is permitted for export during the first six months of 1947 contains dollar paying countries.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, but the matter is being reviewed.

Colonel Hutchison: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that manufacturers are being asked to deliver to the United States and Canada, while imports are authorised from the same places, and will he consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether this conforms to his dollar policy?

Sir S. Cripps: There are other considerations as regards exporting foodstuffs when this country is short of food.

American Shoes

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many dollars have been allocated for the importation of women's leather shoes from Canada and the U.S.A.; whether a ceiling price has been fixed to prevent luxury shoes being imported; and why these dollars cannot be used for purchasing either hides and skin, or leather, so as to provide greater employment and more footwear in this country.

Sir S. Cripps: The value of imports of women's leather shoes from the United States and Canada during 1947 is not expected to exceed £130,000 or approximately 520,000 dollars. A reasonable average price has been agreed with both countries for the bulk of these shoes, although a small proportion will be admitted without any restriction in order that the best of style and design may be available to stimulate our production. These imports do not prejudice our purchases of hides and leather, additional quantities of which are also being imported so as to increase our leather supplies as far as possible.

Mr. Osborne: Will the bulk of those shoes have to come within the utility specifications, and will they have to be sold within the maximum utility prices?

Sir S. Cripps: No, they cannot because the type of manufacture is different.

Therefore, they cannot conform to the utility specification but, as I have said, reasonable prices have been fixed for the bulk of them.

Sir William Darling: Is the President of the Board of Trade not overlooking the recommendations of the working party which enjoined that any minimum quality standards imposed upon the domestic industry should be correspondingly imposed upon imported footwear?

Sir S. Cripps: We are doing that, and that is why I say arrangements are being made as to quota and price.

Italy

Mr. Piratin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in detail the values of goods imported from, and exported to, Italy during the year 1946.

Sir S. Cripps: A considerable amount of information about our trade with Italy is contained in the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation. I will send the hon. Member the particulars that were published in the Accounts for December, 1946.

Mr. Piratin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we are importing a certain amount of manufactured goods from Italy, which include very expensive silk clothing, and will he look into this matter to see whether this country still needs Italian silk clothing?

Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly look into any matter which the hon. Member wishes to raise, but if he will look at the figures I think he will be satisfied with what is being done.

Pineapples

Mr. Piratin: asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries from which pineapples were imported during 1946, indicating the respective values from each country.

Sir S. Cripps: Total imports of pineapples in 1946 amounted to £153,000, of which all but £1,000 come from the Azores.

Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister think it was essential for this country to import pineapples at a cost of £153,000, in view of the fact that, though I. too, am a lover


of fruit, I am not able to afford the price of pineapples at 20s. each? Will he restrict the imports of these pineapples?

Sir S. Cripps: Quite a number of pineapples, I understand, have been sold off barrows to people who are not very rich people; and they do give some variety to the diet.

Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister disagree that pineapples are being sold at 20s. each? Does he really think the working class can buy them at that price?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I have not seen any at that price.

Mr. Piratin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should ask his wife.

Sir S. Cripps: In any case, it is a question for the Minister of Food.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL EMERGENCY

Warnings

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the information services at the disposal of the Government took adequate measures during December and January to prepare the public for the difficulties that would arise out of the fuel shortage, even in the event of favourable weather conditions; and what steps he proposes to take to strengthen these services.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Ample warning of the danger of a coal shortage arising this winter, and the consequences of such shortage on industry and the domestic consumer, were given well in advance of December and January; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power recapitulated some of the warnings given during the Debates in this House on 7th February and 10th February. In January when it became necessary to restrict supplies of coal to industry and to introduce the Fuel Allocation Scheme, my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Fuel and Power held a Press conference on r3th January at which the situation arising out of the fuel shortage and the need for fuel economy was fully explained.

Mr. Wyatt: Surely my right hon. Friend agrees that the public did not realise how serious the situation was, nor did they realise the absolute necessity for saving the

maximum amount of fuel in their own homes? Does not that mean that the Government information services need strengthening so that people can be fully informed of these things before they happen?

The Prime Minister: There have been criticisms in this House that there are too many people in the information services.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was not the information services which were at fault, but that it was a case of the inefficiency of the Minister of Fuel and Power and of the Government?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend consider reviving and filling the office of Minister of Information so that the Government's case will not go by default, as it has done, as a. result of the Opposition Press activities?

Ministerial Co-ordination

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prune Minister what co-ordinating machinery exists between the Minister of Fuel and Power, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply; and whether some explanatory statement will be made showing the Government's comprehensive plan to clarify the future position, and to get industry again into full operation.

The Prime Minister: In order to deal with urgent inquiries about the application of the recent restrictions on the supply of electricity to industry a special committee, with representatives of all the Departments concerned, has been in daily session, and I myself preside over a committee of Ministers which keeps the general situation under review. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made to the House yesterday.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is never too late nor too early to speak the truth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There was nothing in that remark which was discourteous. Hon. Members have not understood what I am saying. I am asking whether the Prime Minister is not aware of that. Would it not be better for the Government to take the full blame for all that has happened, rather than put it all on the shoulders of one Minister?

The Prime Minister: There is no suggestion on this side of the House that everything should be blamed on or put on the shoulders of one Minister. He is not responsible for the weather.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (LAND REQUIREMENTS)

Mr. Hare: asked the Prime Minister if he will assure the House that a statement will be made on the future of Service training areas before the Debate takes place on the forthcoming Army Estimates.

The Prime Minister: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which I propose to make on Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Permits (Italians)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give special consideration to the issue of labour permits to Italian citizens who are married to women of British birth, and whose wives cannot leave this country for domestic and compassionate reasons.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Sympathetic consideration is given to these cases.

Demobilisation

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the signing of the peace treaties and the manpower shortage, he expects, shortly, to be able to announce a further substantial acceleration of demobilisation.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the "Statement Relating to Defence," Cmd. 7042, which has just been presented to Parliament.

Mr. Driberg: But is not my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern caused by that statement, and the announcement in it that more than a million men will still be in the Forces at the end of March, 1948; can he not say anything further; and is he bringing constant pressure on the Service Departments and on the Foreign Secretary, from his particular point of view?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say anything further than what is contained in the statement itself. Surely, the hon. Member does not want an opinion from me?

Disabled Persons

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-Servicemen in receipt of disability pensions are unemployed; and how many of these are in receipt of unemployment allowances.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available. The total number of ex-Servicemen on the Disabled Persons Register who were unemployed at 20th January was 43,819.

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied with the results achieved by the recent exhibition in Oxford Street, which showed the disabled at work.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The exhibition was open from 8th January to 1st February and, despite the inclement weather, was seen by 62,786 visitors, including large numbers of employers. The object of the exhibition was to bring home to the public, and particularly to employers, what is being done to re-establish disabled persons in useful employment; and I am convinced that it was successful. So much so, that I would like to take this opportunity of appealing to all employers and managements to give the disabled every chance to use their gifts, and to show that they can hold their place in industry alongside their able-bodied fellow workers.

Sir P. Hannon: Is not it a fact that for a long period of years the employers of this country have made every possible effort to provide work for men and women in the category to which he has just referred?

Mr. Isaacs: I will be fair. A great number have, but a great number have not. I must say, since the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act has been passed there has been a very genuine effort on the part of employers.

Mr. Mellish: Will the Minister indicate whether it is the intention to extend this exhibition to the provinces?

Mr. Isaacs: We will have a look at it as soon as the better weather comes, to see if we can do anything.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some employers are unable to


secure sufficient disabled trainees; and is he satisfied that the arrangements are sufficiently satisfactory to enable employers to obtain the services of these men?

Mr. Isaacs: I am totally unaware of the first part of my hon. Friend's question. If he will give me any instances of employers who have been unable to get the services of disabled workers we will take it up. As for training facilities, I am satisfied they are quite adequate.

Displaced Persons

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Labour how many Government representatives there are at present in Germany interviewing displaced persons with a view to placing them in employment in this country; how long the Government's representatives have been in Germany; and how many displaced persons they have so far found suitable for employment in this country.

Mr. Isaacs: Under the scheme for recruiting displaced persons for hospital domestic work, hitherto in force, two officers of my Department have been engaged in interviewing displaced persons since September, 1946. One thousand three hundred and seventy-two women recruited under this scheme have already started work in British sanatoria and hospitals, and several hundreds more, who have been passed as suitable, will be brought here as soon as possible. The inflow is being stepped up by some hundreds a week, and there are prospects of the demand being satisfied at an early date. The organisation for classifying and selecting displaced persons for employment in this country, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred on 18th February in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), is being set up, and officers of my Department will be allocated for the purpose.

Mr. K. Lindsay: Will their power be limited to interviewing, or will they have additional powers of recruitment?

Mr. Isaacs: Under the new scheme they will be given power to find out the capacity and to bring persons over here, if there is available employment for which they are suited without further delay.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say how many aliens there

are now in this country who are forbidden to work owing to the terms of their entry permits, imposed by the Home Office; and when he is considering the question of bringing in aliens for permanent employment, will he consider whether the restrictions upon those already here may not now be reconsidered?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not give the information asked for in the first part of the question. I certainly give the undertaking asked for in the second part.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in our Colonies, notably in Malta, a number of people who are unemployed who would like to come to this country; and would he consult with the Colonial Secretary before proceeding, in order to take people from those countries first?

Mr. Isaacs: That is an entirely different question. I think I have answered very fully the Question put to me.

Control of Engagement Orders

Keenan: asked the Minister of Labour if it is intended to modify the terms of the Control of Engagement Orders, in view of the changes in the age of call-up of men to His Majesty's Forces which have been in operation since the beginning of this year.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I have made an order, with effect from 24th February, abolishing all control of engagement except in relation to agriculture, coal-mining and building and civil engineering, in which industries the existing control of engagement continues unchanged.

Railway Clerks' Wage Claim

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if the Railway Clerks' Association was represented at the National Joint Advisory Council meeting which issued the statement in Cmd. No. 7018; and if he will make a statement on the association's demands for a 35-hour week and £1 wage increase.

Mr. Isaacs: The statement to which the hon. Member refers was issued by the Government, but with the endorsement of both sides of the National Joint Advisory Council, which consist respectively of members representing the Trades Union


Congress and the British Employers' Confederation. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Osborne: Does the Minister think that in our present economic crisis the country can afford a 35-hour week?

Mr. Isaacs: It is not a matter of what I think. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] If negotiations are going on between a trade union and employers it would be quite wrong for the Minister of Labour, who ultimately may be called upon to negotiate between the two parties, to say what he thinks.

Mr. Percy Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that the claim represents an effort to introduce order where chaos now prevails, and is in respect of the hours of employment of clerical and administrative workers in the railway services of this country, which have resulted in huge withdrawals from the services?

Dock Workers (Decasualisation)

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: asked the Minister of Labour when he now expects to publish notices of the Draft Order and permanent schemes of decasualisation under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act. 1946.

Mr. Isaacs: I expect that the prepartion of the final draft will be completed by the end of this week. Actual publication may, however, be delayed, as the process of duplication of the necessary number of copies depends on electric current which is subject to the current cuts. If these cuts continue, a period of about a fortnight will be required for duplication.

Mr. Macpherson: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate there will be any difficulty in bringing the permanent scheme into operation by the date mentioned in the Act, namely, 1st July of this year?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I think we can keep to that date. We have had informal conversations with both sides of the industry, and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I think we have prepared a scheme which will not give rise to many objections; at any rate, we hope so. We will keep that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Savings Bank Withdrawals

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the figures for Post Office Savings Bank withdrawals for the past six months; and whether these are bigger than the deposits.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (W. Dalton): These figures have already been published by the National Savings Committee; I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Keeling: Can the Chancellor say whether he contemplates any reduction in the rate of interest?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question on that.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Has there been any marked increase in cashments during the past fortnight, since the severe increase in the number of unemployed?

Mr. Dalton: I think that question might be put down. As a matter of fact, it is very good to see how the national savings have kept up, in spite of all the circumstances.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In spite of the right hon. Gentleman.

Commodity Subsidies

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what articles of food and other commodities are not included in the £364,000,000 subsidy; and what is their respective cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Dalton: Utility clothing, £14,500,000; and leather, £17,500,000.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a clear statement as to what extent the taxpayers are subsidising the food prices, and to what extent the purchasing power of the pound sterling is being upheld by the Government?

Mr. Dalton: Clear statements to all these questions are repeatedly given, in every possible form of combination, when the hon. Member puts down his Questions.

Sir W. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman did not give a clear answer.

Currency Export

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he is aware that £4,500 has recently been sent to Soviet miners as a gift from the National Union of Mineworkers; and, in view of the fact that export of money from this country is restricted, why permission was given for this amount and for this purpose.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. And that is a clear answer.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a permit to export a similar amount to the dispossessed millionaires of America? May I have an answer to that?

Sterling Balances (Negotiations)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the negotiations with the Government of India for the payment of sterling balances, His Majesty's Government reserves the right to present a counterclaim for the defence of India during the war; and whether such a claim has been definitely put forward in the present negotiations.

Mr. Dalton: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." In reply to the second part of the Question, I cannot add anything to the agreed communiqué which was issued at the end of the recent conversations in India.

Mr. Gammans: Is the same principle to be applied to debts owing to other countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless these debts are scaled down, even though they are funded, it will mean that 500,000 British workers will be producing for the next 25 years goods on which there will be no return whatsoever?

Mr. Dalton: I am very glad to have evidence of support from hon. Members opposite in the battle I shall be conducting for some time to come to prevent the British taxpayers having to bear grossly heavy burdens.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my supplementary question? Is this principle of getting these debts scaled down, to be applied, not only to India, but to Egypt and other countries defended by us during the war?

Mr. Dalton: The day before yesterday I gave an answer to a supplementary question by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) in which I said:
In all negotiations about sterling balances account must be taken of the comparative war effort of the parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February 1947; Vol. 433, C. 978.]

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the assurance that that statement has full endorsement from this side of the House?

Argentine (Financial Arrangements)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total involved in the adverse balance of payments between this country and the Argentine for 1946; and that anticipated for 1947.

Mr. Dalton: £50 million in 1946. I cannot yet usefully give a figure for 1947, which must depend on a large number of uncertain factors.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total revenue received from British investments in the Argentine for 1945 and 1946, respectively, and that anticipated for 1947.

Mr. Dalton: £12,500,000 and £13,000.000 respectively. Revenue in 1947 cannot be estimated.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied with the agreement concluded with the Argentine for the purchase by that country of the holdings in Argentine railways held by British investors; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. The agreement is subject to approval by the shareholders of the companies.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that of the £15o million paid, £125 million has simply been redeemed by the proceeds of sterling balances, and that this is the perfect example of no counter claim being made, and that for £25 million of Argentine currency we are selling our most: valuable assets in South America?

Mr. Dalton: One might have a considerable Debate on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I was asked whether the Government are satisfied, and my answer is "Yes, we are." But when I speak of that, I think, of course, of the whole of the Argentine Agreement of which this is only one part.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible time.

Fuel Emergency (Industrial Losses)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the question of compensation to those firms required to pay guaranteed-week wages; and if he will make a statement.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will consider compensating those who cannot claim unemployment benefit, such as proprietors of businesses, doctors, dentists, newspaper proprietors, musicians and other professional men and women who suffer loss owing to the fuel shortage.

Mr. Dalton: I regret that any such arrangements would he quite impracticable.

Mr. Haire: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the case of some small firms that give a guaranteed week?

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid it really would be impracticable to pick out firms here and there. It would be quite impossible to draw a line and say, "Thus far and no farther."

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the tact that the whole of this loss is due to the inefficiency of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill to surcharge Ministers' salaries to pay for this?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS. BLACKPOOL

Brigadier Low: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants, permanent and temporary, respectively, are now working in offices in Blackpool; how many he plans to have working there on 1st January, 1948, and

how many on 1st July, 1948; and whether he will circulate a table showing the numbers in each Department, separately.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Two thousand four hundred and fifty permanent and 8,070 temporary. I expect that the total figure will have been reduced by nearly 40 per cent. early in 1948 I cannot give a closer forecast at present I will circulate the required table in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.

Following is the table


CIVIL SERVANTS WORKING IN BLACKPOOL (EXCLUDING PURELY LOCAL OFFICES).


February, 1947.


Department
Permanent.
Temporary.
Total.


H.M. Customs and Excise.
191
118
309


Ministry of National Insurance
1,380 3,800
5,180


Ministry of Pensions
750
3,500
4,250


Ministry of Transport
129
652
781


Total
2,450
8,070
10,520

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLE

German Submarines

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether before the 100 German submarines were sunk by the Admiralty in 1946, any consideration was given by his Department to the possibility of using these submarines to generate electricity at appropriate ports and seaside towns in Great Britain.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): No, Sir

Mr. Medlicott: Was no consideration given at all to the possibility of these valuable generating plants being used in crisis such as this?

Mr. Shinwell: I must inform the hon. Member that, under the Potsdam Agreement, these submarines should have been destroyed in February of last year.

Mr. Beechman: Is any effort being made to use submarines for this purpose?

Mr. Shinwell: An effort has been made quite successfully.

Mr. Bossom: Have the submarines been destroyed?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say, but the Agreement was that they should be.

Mr. Medlicott: Would it not have been possible, within the limits of the Agreement, to have taken the generating plant away before the submarines were sunk?

Industrial Premises, Surrey (Cuts)

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority sent out representatives on 10th February in the Dorking area to enter many industrial premises without notice to the occupiers to remove the fuse gear; if he is aware that this action caused much resentment to the occupiers concerned; and on what statutory authority such action was taken.

Mr. Shinwell: The London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority interpreted the original instructions they received as requiring them to cut off supplies to industrial consumers and regarded themselves as covered by Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I understand that the supplies were reconnected on Tuesday, 'Ph February.

Mr. Touche: Is it not rather a pity that the Minister did not give clear instructions, so that we should not have this high handed action?

Mr. Shinwell: The instruction was sent out by the Electricity Commissioners under statutory authority.

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that, on Saturday, 8th February, the Capel Laundry Company, Limited, Capel, Surrey, were informed by the Board of Trade that their electric supply would be maintained as an essential service, but that on Monday the supply was cut off as the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority had not received any instructions as to giving such priority; and if he will make a statement on the subject.

Mr. Shinwell: I am informed that the supply of electricity to the Capel Laundry Company Limited was disconnected on Monday, 10th February, before the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority had received instructions that laundries were to be regarded as an essential service but that the supply was reconnected as from 4 p.m. on that date.

Mr. Touche: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the supply was cut off again on Tuesday morning?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of that, and as this is regarded as an essential industry, it ought not to have been cut. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me information about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Exports

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, arising out of the official figures which were issued in connection with the export of coal from this country overseas, amounting to some 8,000,000 tons for the year 1946, and the total stock shortage figure which was given as 3,000,000 tons, steps will be taken to reduce the export figures for 1947 by 3,000,000 tons so as to make provision for an adequate coal stock reserve figure.

Mr. Shinwell: The total exports in 1946 referred to by the hon. Member were divided as to approximately half for ships' bunkers at United Kingdom ports and half for cargo exports. Moreover, cargo exports included supplies to bunker depots and H.M. Forces overseas, the great bulk of the balance consisting of very inferior qualities. With regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) on 14th February.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government to give him some powers to deal with the allocations of the European Coal Board, and will he say why coal needed so urgently at home is being sent abroad?

Mr. Shinwell: That is another question.

European Coal Organisation

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now make a statement showing the present membership and stating the functions of the European Coal Organisation; the effect the organisation has upon the allocation of coal produced in this country; and the extent to which the export of British coal is dictated by this organisation.

Mr. Shinwell: As the answer to the first part of the Question is a list, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.


With regard to the remainder of the Question, there is no change in the position described in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 28th May last, in which I pointed out that the European Coal Organisation is not concerned with either the quantity of coal used in the United Kingdom or its distribution.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not an astonishing fact that a big international body is allowed to allocate coal which is badly needed at home, and we have no control over it whatsoever?

Mr. Shinwell: Only a very small proportion of our coal goes abroad, and it is a very negligible portion of the amount used by the European Coal Board.

Mr. Churchill: How does the amount of coal exported abroad compare with the amount that has been saved in the last ten days?

Mr. Shinwell: I have given the reply to the Question. The figure of exports for last year is about 8 million tons, and about half of that was for bunkering, which cannot he avoided. For the rest, it is regarded as inferior coal.

Mr. Churchill: What have we saved during the period of restriction?

Mr. Shinwell: That, of course, is another question

Mr. Churchill: It is another question, Out it is one which urgently requires a reply.

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman regards it is urgent, he will put clown a question.
Following is the list:
Member Countries: Belgium, Czecho slovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America.
Associatied Countries: Finland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland.
Full members of the Organisation, which have so far been confined to United Nations, include both supplying and importing countries. Certain other European countries, dependent on imported coal supplies, participate in the Organisation and are known as "Associated Countries." In addition, arrangements have recently been made for South

Africa, which exports relatively small quantities of coal to Europe, to be represented at appropriate meetings of the Organisation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the acting Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 24th February—Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
Tuesday, 25th February—A Debate on Palestine will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Wednesday, 26th February—There will be an opportunity for a Debate on the resumption of industry and domestic fuel distribution on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Thursday, 27th February—First allotted Supply day. Civil and Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, 1947–48—Committee stage. A Debate on foreign affairs will take place.
Friday, 28th February—Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates contained in Paper No. 46, beginning with the Control Office for Germany and Austria; Diplomatic and Consular Services; United Nations; Assistance to Greece, and progress with other outstanding Votes in Committee and on Report.
During the week we shall ask the House to agree to the Report stage of Navy and Army Supplementary Estimates, 1946–47.

Mr. Eden: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Business of next week, and the Business the House will have to do when we come to consider the Government's White Paper on Economic Policy, is of outstanding importance. Will he reassure us that some reports we have heard of the possibility of Standing Committees meeting in the afternoon will not, in any circumstances, take shape while the House has to deal with matters of this urgency at this particular time?

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the tact that Members are working hard on Standing Committees, but the King's Speech


laid down these Measures, and we must proceed with them as quickly and expeditiously as possible, having regard to the ordinary decencies of full discussion. That does not necessarily mean that we can always give up Sittings of Committees in the afternoon. I appreciate the importance of the Debate to which the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition pay a good deal of attention, and we will give that Debate a proper chance. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to discuss, through the usual channels, whether satisfactory arrangements. can be made for the conduct of the Committees, I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Eden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there really is no precedent for asking Standing Committees to meet in the afternoons, except in the closing stages of the Session to finish a Bill? The only assurance I am asking for is that we should make quite certain that Members of this House will he free to discuss the most important subjects which can come before it.

Mr. Greenwood: I have said that I am prepared to consider that, in a most friendly way, with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a question of lateness in the Session, but a question of pressure on the Government and the time available, having regard to the character of the Measures.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are precedents for Committees sitting in the afternoons even when we are not near the end of the Session?

Mr. Janner: Will an early opportunity be given to the House to consider the Denning Report on divorce; and will such Measures as are necessary be put into effect?

Mr. Greenwood: I really cannot hold out any opportunity of bringing in any more legislation, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal.

Mr. Eden: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Business, in which he says he will ask the House to agree to the Report stage of the Navy and Army Supplementary Estimates, 1946–47, he will understand that there is an item of

some importance, the expenditure of some £20 million of the taxpayers' money, in the Army Supplementary Estimate, about which we are awaiting a satisfactory answer. May I ask for an assurance that this will be taken at a reasonably late hour?

Mr. Greenwood: I am perfectly well aware of the anxiety of the House; perhaps we can come to an agreement on the matter through the usual channels.

Mr. Churchill: Has not the acting Leader of the House announced an entirely new departure in respect of Standing Committees sitting in the afternoons, otherwise than for the completion of business at the end of the Session? Is not this process going to lead to a grave contraction of Parliamentary effectiveness? In the first instance, Measures are sent up to the Standing Committees and the House is deprived of an opportunity of discussing them in Committee of the Whole House, and then these Committees upstairs are made to sprawl over the afternoons, so that Members will not be able to return to the discussion of the Report stage of other Measures which have been disposed of equally summarily in Grand Committees. Is this not a shameful rupture and restriction of the long-established Parliamentary processes of debate?

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not had an extensive experience of Standing Committee work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. This is not a departure in principle at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Hon. Members now on this side of the House have in the past been punished by a very hard, bitter and vicious Conservative Government in regard to sittings in the afternoons, and when I have been in Opposition I have raised the same matter myself. I have made an offer to the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this question, and I am prepared to discuss it through the usual channels. I am bound to say that I have objections to the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, starting a Debate on a matter which is obviously one which ought to be discussed through the usual channels, with a view to causing the minimum inconvenience to the House.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a question, not of starting a Debate on a new topic, but of whether the right hon. Gentleman has announced a new departure? If he has announced no new departure in principle, and if it is only a question of some easement being required, then it is proper that such discussions should be through the usual channels. But if, first of all, he is going to send great Measures upstairs for prolonged discussion there, which will mean that Members will be locked up there in important Debates, with the result that the House of Commons will he mutilated for the sake of the Standing Committees upstairs, then this is the proper place to discuss such a matter.

Mr. Greenwood: Any Government determines what Bills should go to Standing Committee. That is the Government's right, and we shall retain it. [HON. MEMBERS "The House's right."] So long as we command the majority, it is the Government's right. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a departure in principle, but we are prepared to see what we can do for the easement of Members of the House in a matter which affects far more people on this side than on the other side. We shall do our hest, through the usual channels, to see how we can make the Committee system work to the best advantage.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Before the Estimates are discussed next week, is it the intention of the Government to make a statement about battle training areas, and to publish a White Paper on the matter?

Mr. Greenwood: I believe that a Question about battle training areas is due to be answered some time next week.

Major Cecil Poole: Will the acting Leader of the House make it quite clear that the Government will have no nonsense in this matter of Standing Committees, and that they are determined to have the Transport Bill at the time at which they have decided—

Earl Winterton: Nazism.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Member for Lich-held (Major Poole) is now discussing a matter of which we have disposed.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In regard to Tuesday's Business, I gather that there will be no objection to suspending the Rule, in view of the important statement made by the Foreign Secretary last week?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not want to be unreasonable, and if it were the view of the House that a slight extension of time was required I should be prepared to consider it sympathetically.

Major Poole: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether it is your Ruling, Sir, or a new departure, that the Leader of the Opposition may be allowed to put half a dozen supplementaries while the ordinary back bench Member is to be deprived of the opportunity of asking even one supplementary?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The reason why I took exception to the hon. arid gallant Member's supplementary, a few moments ago, was that I understood that we had disposed of that matter.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Reverting to the question of Standing Committees sitting in the afternoon—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have just said that we have disposed of that matter.

Mr. John Paton: On Thursday's Business, in view of the importance of the foreign affairs Debate will my right hon. Friend consider extending the time for it by one hour?

Mr. Granville: May I ask the acting Leader of the House whether, apart from the usual channels, the House itself will be given an opportunity of discussing any proposal that Standing Committees should sit during the afternoon?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have already passed from that question.

Mr. Eden: Can the acting Leader of the House say something about the Business for today? There is a large number of Orders on the Paper. Can he say how far the Government hope to proceed?

Mr. Greenwood: I hope we shall be able to dispose of the Third Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill in a fairly reasonable time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak tip."] I am sorry, but I have a cold; in any case if Members would be a little quieter they would hear me


better. I was saying that I hoped that the Third Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill would not take an unduly long time. It may be that the House does not want to sit too late tonight, but we must make substantial progress. If the House should look like sitting extremely late, however, then the Chief Whip or I might move the Adjournment, on the understanding that we get through the rest of the Bill in a reasonable time.

Mr. Eden: The rest of what Bill?

Mr. Greenwood: I was thinking primarily of the Polish Resettlement Bill.

INDIA (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Change of Viceroy

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I deire to make a statement on Indian policy.
It has long been the policy of successive British Governments to work towards the realisation of self-government in India. In pursuance of this policy an increasing measure of responsibility has been devolved on Indians and today the civil administration and the Indian Armed Forces rely to a very large extent on Indian civilians and officers. In the constitutional field the Acts of 1919 and 1935 passed by the British Parliament each represented a substantial transfer of political power. In 1940 the Coalition Government recognised the principle that Indians should themselves frame a new constitution for a fully autonomous India, and in the offer of 1942 they invited them to set up a Constituent Assembly for this purpose as soon as the war was over.
His Majesty's Government believe this policy to have been right and in accordance with sound democratic principles. Since they came into office, they have done their utmost to carry it forward to its fulfilment. The declaration of the Prime Minister of 15th March last which met with general approval in Parliament and the country, made it clear that it was for the Indian people themselves to choose their future status and constitution and that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the time had come for responsibility for the Government of India to pass into Indian hands.
The Cabinet Mission which was sent to India last year spent over three months in consultation with Indian leaders in order to help them to agree upon a method for determining the future constitution of India, so that the transfer of power might be smoothly and rapidly effected. It was only when it seemed clear that without some initiative from the Cabinet Mission agreement was unlikely to be reached that they put forward proposals themselves.
These proposals, made public in May last, envisaged that the future constitution of India should be settled by a Constituent Assembly composed, in the manner suggested therein, of representatives of all communities and interests in British India and of the Indian States.
Since the return of the Mission an Interim Government has been set up at the Centre composed of the political leaders of the major communities exercising wide powers within the existing constitution. In all the Provinces Indian Governments responsible to Legislatures are in office.
It is with great regret that His Majesty's Government find that there are still differences among Indian Parties which are preventing the Constituent Assembly from functioning as it was intended that it should. It is of the essence of the plan that the Assembly should be fully representative.
His Majesty's Government desire to hand over their responsibility to authorities established by a constitution approved by all parties in India in accordance with the Cabinet Mission's plan, but unfortunately there is at present no clear prospect that such a constitution and such authorities will emerge. The present state of uncertainty is fraught with danger and cannot be indefinitely prolonged. His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that it is their definite intention to take the necessary steps to effect the transference of power into responsible Indian hands by a date not later than June, 1948.
This great sub-continent now containing over 400 million people has for the last century enjoyed peace and security as a part of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Continued peace and security are more than ever necessary today if the full possibilities of economic development are to be realised and a higher standard of life attained by the Indian people.
His Majesty's Government are anxious to hand over their responsibilities to a Government which, resting on the sure foundation of the support of the people, is capable of maintaining peace and administering India with justice and efficiency. It is therefore essential that all parties should sink their differences in order that they may he ready to shoulder the great responsibilities which will come upon them next year.
After months of hard work by the Cabinet Mission a great measure of agreement was obtained as to the method by which a constitution should be worked out. This was embodied in their statements of May last. His Majesty's Government there agreed to recommend to Parliament a constitution worked out, in accordance with the proposals made therein, by a fully representative Constituent Assembly. But if it should appear that such a constitution will not have been worked out by a fully representative Assembly before the time mentioned in paragraph 7, His Majesty's Government will have to consider to whom the powers of the Central Government in British India should be handed over, on the due date, whether as a whole to some form of central Government for British India or in some areas to the existing Provincial Governments, or in such other way as may seem most reasonable and in the best interests of the Indian people.
Although the final transfer of authority may not take place until June, 1948, preparatory measures must be put in hand in advance. It is important that the efficiency of the civil administration should be maintained and that the defence of India should be fully provided for. But inevitably, as the process of transfer proceeds, it will become progressively more difficult to carry out to the letter all the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. Legislation will be introduced in due course to give effect to the final transfer of power.
In regard to the Indian States, as was explicitly stated by the Cabinet Mission, His Majesty's Government do not intend to hand over their powers and obligations under paramountcy to any Government of British India. It is not intended to bring paramountcy, as a system, to a conclusion earlier than the date of the final transfer of power, but it is contemplated that for the intervening period

the relations of the Crown with individual States may be adjusted by agreement.
His Majesty's Government will negotiate agreements in regard to matters arising out of the transfer of power with the representatives of those to whom they propose to transfer power.
His Majesty's Government believe that British commercial and industrial interests in India can look forward to a fair field for their enterprise under the new conditions. The commercial connection between India and the United Kingdom has been long and friendly, and will continue to be to their mutual advantage.
His Majesty's Government cannot conclude this statement without expressing on behalf of the people of this country their goodwill and good wishes towards the people of India, as they go forward to this final stage in their achievement of self-government. It will be the wish of everyone in these islands that, notwithstanding constitutional changes, the association of the British and Indian peoples should not be brought to an end; and they will wish to continue to do all that is in their power to further the well-being of India.
This concludes the statement on policy.
The House will now wish to know of an announcement which is being made public today. Field Marshal the Right Honourable Viscount Wavell was appointed Viceroy in 1943 after having held high military command in South-East Asia, the Middle East and India with notable distinction since the beginning of the war. It was agreed that this should be a wartime appointment. Lord Wavell has discharged this high office during this very difficult period with devotion and a high sense of duty. It has however seemed that the opening of this new and final phase in India is the appropriate time to terminate this war appointment. His Majesty has been pleased to approve, as successor to Lord Wavell, the appointment of Rear-Admiral the Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, who will he entrusted with the task of transferring to Indian hands the responsibility for the government of British India in the manner that will best ensure the future happiness and prosperity of India. He will remain on the active list, in accordance with his wish that his future employ-


ment in the Royal Navy shall not be prejudiced. I feel sure that the whole House will wish Lord Mountbatten well in his great task. The change of office will take place during March. The House will be glad to hear that His Majesty has been pleased to approve the conferment of an Earldom on Viscount Wavell.

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay before the House the reasons for the termination of the appointment of Viscount Wavell at this particular moment? Will he indicate to us, as it is essential to our comprehension of the position, what differences, divergences or disagreements have arisen between the Viceroy and His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have made the announcement with regard to the termination of the Viceroyalty of Lord Wavell, and I do not propose to add anything to it.

Mr. Churchill: Surely, we are entitled to be treated in a reasonable manner. Is it not a fact that if Lord Wavell's Viceroyalty had ended with the war, it, would have ended 18 months ago, and that had it ended after three years, it would have ended in June last? What, then, is the reason for this difference and disagreement which have lead to the removal and dismissal of a Viceroy in the full conduct of Government policy?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that Lord Wavell was not appointed for a fixed term. As has been stated, it was thought that in the changing phase of the Indian problem, it was a suitable time to make a change. I do not propose to add anything to that statement.

Mr. Churchill: May I ask, in all humility, because the House is entitled to a reasonable explanation, why has this moment been chosen for this momentous new departure? There must be some reason. Is there any reason why it should be concealed from the House? Why should we not be told the truth?

The Prime Minister: I have already stated the reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "What reason?"] Will hon. Members wait a moment. I have already stated the reason in the statement I have made, that we regard it as a suitable time to make a change, owing to the change in the

phase of the Indian problem. I do not intend to say more than that. I am not aware that there is any precedent for such a request.

Mr. Churchill: What are the reasons which make this time appropriate for a change? There must be some reason. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman did not wake up one morning, and say, "Oh, let us get another Viceroy"? It must have some purpose or reason behind it, and we have a right to know what is that purpose or reason.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Clement Davies: is it the Prime Minister's intention to give a full opportunity at the earliest possible moment for Debate on this very important statement? That obviously cannot be this week, but can we have an assurance that it will be next week? Are we to understand that the purport of the statement that has been made amounts to this—that the Government have now fixed the definite date of June, 1948, as the day on which they will transfer the government of India to the people of India, whether or not agreement has been arrived at between Congress and the Muslim League?

The Prime Minister: The Government are perfectly willing to have a Debate and indeed will welcome the opportunity for full Debate on all these matters. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) asked a question?

Mr. Churchill: I did ask that some reason or explanation should be given for the extremely important executive action which the Government have taken, and which must have been animated by some motive accessible to human intelligence.

The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister he made a great many changes in both military arid civil appointments. I never understood that there was any obligation on him to give an explanation why those changes were made.

Mr. Churchill: May I ask this question? Here we are dealing with a great policy which is unfolding before us. Are we not dealing with an officer who has been serving the Government in the most intimate relations? Now he is dismissed. May we not know what are the differences


which have arisen to lead to the dismissal of one Viceroy and the appointment of another? Surely that is a matter which, in the history of either House of Parliament, has never been denied fair discussion.

Sir John Anderson: Arising out of the point made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not appreciate the extreme complexity of the issues involved, and the utter impossibility of dealing with them in an orderly fashion within a fixed time limit in the presence of so many uncertain and unknown factors, including the uncertainty which must continue over a prolonged period—

Mr. John Paton: On a point of Order. May I submit that we appear to be anticipating the Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I have the point in mind.

Sir J. Anderson: I was asking whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciated the many unknown factors in connection with this subject, including the uncertainty which must obtain for a considerable period, as to whether it will, in fact, be possible to hand over responsibility to an authority capable of dealing with India as a whole.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right about the uncertainties, and one of the reasons for this statement is to try to remove uncertainty. It is a fact that despite all the declarations we have made, there are still people in India who think they can hang on and let things drift. We are against drift.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Scuttle.

The Prime Minister: We want to bring this uncertainty to a close, in regard to this matter.

Sir J. Anderson: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not dealt with my point about a fixed time limit? How can that be reconciled with the uncertainty that must continue for a prolonged and unknown period?

The Prime Minister: That is the reason why we put in a date. I think that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman would be far better developed in a Debate rather than by question and answer.

Mr. Blackburn: Is it a fact that His Majesty's Government, while very anxious to fulfil the promise of self-government which the Coalition Government gave to India, do not seek to abandon all responsibility for the security of India?

The Prime Minister: No. I have made it perfectly plain that it has been our constant endeavour to have settled government in India. We shall not obtain that by long continued uncertainty, and as it is the policy of this Government and I think of this House that the Indians should become responsible, I think it is time for them to face up to the fact that that responsibility is now upon them.

Mr. R. A. Butler: With reference to the question of date, is it the Government's intention to bring legislation before this House at a date prior to June, 1948; and if so, does not that give less than a year for all the Indian difficulties to be resolved; and if they are not resolved is it still the intention of the Government to go ahead with the fixed date and hand over power to small units without proper consideration of the central government, and, in fact, hand over India to chaos?

The Prime Minister: It is not the intention to hand India over to chaos. I really think that the points which are now being made would be much better developed in a Debate. They are perfectly legitimate points for which we have a full answer. It does not clarify the matter to try. o deal with it by question and answer.

Mr. Churchill: Is there no answer to be given to the question of whether there have been any differences or divergences between His Majesty's Government and the Viceroy?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have had quite a number of questions and answers, and I think this matter might well await the promised Debate.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of Order. I wish to ask a question which has really nothing to do with the subsequent Debate if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will allow me. Does not the Prime Minister realise that his reluctance to answer the reasonable—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: When I called the hon. Gentleman I understood that he had a fresh point which he wished to raise,


but the one he is now raising is clearly one which can be disposed of in the Debate which has been promised.

Mr. Stewart: Very respectfully I would ask your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to conclude my question, and you will see that what I am asking is a fresh point. I am asking, does the Prime Minister realise that his refusal to answer must lead to the conclusion that sharp differences of opinion have arisen and in view of that are we to understand that Lord Wavell is or is not to be permitted to make a public statement?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in keeping with the Rules of Order and procedure of this House that the Leader of the Opposition should be able to ask the same question 15 times, while the Leader of the Communist Party cannot ask one simple little question?

Ears Winterton: Reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the point that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, is it not possible to ask whether any labour or trade union leader was considered for this important appointment?

Mr. Churchill: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Unless there is a point of Order I think we should get on.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of Order. Am I not perfectly entitled, in view of the momentous statement that has been made by the Prime Minister, to ask him if he will answer the question put to him by the Leader of the Liberal Party, as to whether Lord Wavell will make, or is to be permitted to make, a public statement?

Mr. Nally: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask for your Ruling? Time and time again we have an important statement made from the Front Bench by a Minister—in this case the Prime Minister—that involves matters in which hon. Members on all sides of the House and of all parties are vitally interested. Time and time again also—today being a case in point—a very large part of the time available is taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) repeating the same question. Whenever he rises, no look is cast by him towards the Chair—a fact for which many other hon. Members can vouch—

Earl Winterton: Reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member has any general comment to make, I think it would be much better if he addressed it to Mr. Speaker when he is in the Chair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 135

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[4.14 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McLeavy, F.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Manning Mrs. L (Epping)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Field, Capt. W. J
Martin, J. H.


Attewell, H. C.
Follick, M.
Mothers, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R
Foot, M. M.
Medland, H. M


Austin, H. Lewis
Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J


Awbery, S. S.
Gallacher, W
Messer, F.


Ayles, W. H.
George, Lady M. Lioyd (Anglesey)
Middleton, Mrs L


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Gibbins, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gibson, C. W
Moody, A. S.


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Barstow, P. G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Battley, J. R.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mort D L


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F
Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Moyle, A.


Benson, G
Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.


Berry, H.
Grierson, E.
Nally, W.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Naylor, T. E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Blackburn, A. R.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Boardman, H.
Guy, W. H.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
O'Brien, T.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hall, W. G.
Oliver, G H.


Bramall, Major E. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Orbach, M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardman, D. R
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Parker, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J
Parkin, B. T


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Bruce, Maj. D. W T
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J (Norwich)


Buchanan, G
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Burden, T. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, Capt. T. F


Burke, W. A.
Holman, P
Perrins, W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
House, G.
Piratin, P.


Byers, Frank
Hoy, J.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hubbard, T.
Popplewell, E.


Chamberlain, R. A
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Chater, D.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W
Pritt, D. N.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Proctor, W. T.


Cobb, F. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Irving, W. J.
Randall, H. F


Coldrick, W
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Ranger, J.


Collindridge, F.
Janner, B.
Rankin, J.


Collins, V. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rees-Williams, D. R


Comyns, Dr. L
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reeves, J.


Cook, T. F.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H.


Crossman, R. H. S
Jones, P. Asterlev (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kendall, W. D
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Kenyon, C.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
King, E. M.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Royle, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirby, B. V.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Granville


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Delargy, H. J
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Diamond, J
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dobbie, W.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng Univ.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N
Lipson, D. L.
Skeffington, A. M.


Donovan, T
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Driberg, T. E. N.
Longden, F
Skinnard, F. W.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McAllister, G
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dumpleton. C. W
McEntee, V. La
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Durbin, E. F. M
McGhee, H. G
Snow, Capt. J. W


Dye, S.
Mack, J. D
Sorensen, R. W


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Soskice, Maj. Sir H.


Edelman, M
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N W)
Sparks, J. A


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Maclean, N (Govan)
Stamford. W




Stephen, C.
Titterington, M. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Tolley, L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Stokes, R. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Stubbs, A. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Swingler, S.
Walker, G. H.
Williamson, T


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willis, E.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow E.)
Wise, Major F J


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Warbey, W. N.
Wyatt, W.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Watson, W. M
Yates, V. F.


Thomas. D. E. (Aberdare)
Weitzman, D.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
West, D. G.



Thurtle, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tiffany, S.
Wigg, Col. G E
Mr. Simmons and


Timmons, J
Wilkes, L
Mr. Hannan




NOES


Aitken, Hon. Max
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Harris, H. Wilson
Osborne, C.


Asshaton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Astor, Hon. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Prescott, Stanley


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Barlow, Sir J.
Hollis, M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Beechman, N. A
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hurd, A
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bossom, A. C.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Reid, Rt Hon. J. S C (Hillhead)


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Renner, Col. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Savory, Prof. D. L


Challen, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Scott, Lord W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smithers, Sir W


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Snadden, W. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spence, H. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fite, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Studholme, H. G.


Darling, Sir W. Y
McCallum, Maj. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Digby, S. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Drayson, G. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lend.)
Macley, Hon. J. S.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Eccles, D. M.
MacLeod, J.
Touche, G. C


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A. A H
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox, Sir G.
Marples, A. E
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Maude, J. C
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gammans, L. D
Medlicott, F
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mellor, Sir J.
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)


Grant, Lady
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.



Gridley, Sir A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Mr. Drewe and




Commander Agnew

Orders of the Day — CIVIC RESTAURANTS BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Order is for the Third Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill. I would like to call your attention to and ask your guidance on the fact that the Bill to which we are being asked, technically, to give a Third Reading is a Bill which does not contain the very fundamental alterations made in this House during the course of the proceedings on the Report stage. The Bill has not been reprinted or amended. It is a little difficult for us, unless we have particularly good memories, to know exactly what are the contents of the Bill we are now being asked to consider.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): It is not unusual for the Third Reading of a Bill immediately to follow the Report stage without reprinting. In those circumstances there is not time to reprint the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides can be assured that if it could have been done, it would have been done. There is, of course, a copy of the revised Bill on the Table, which the right hon. Gentleman can peruse.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I quite appreciate—both of us have been present on such occasions—that Third Readings often immediately follow the Report stage. To hon. Members who have been in the House at the time, it has appeared to be a continuous process. However, on this occasion some 48 hours have elapsed since we concluded the Report stage, and surely it is not unreasonable to suggest—I hesitate to put it this way because I am not sure whether Mr. Speaker or yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is not the officer responsible—that, whoever is responsible, it would have helped our convenience if we had a reprint of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That point will be borne in mind. In point of fact, on this occasion time was too short. The Report stage was taken on Monday, and the Bill was first put down for Tuesday,

the following day. That being so, there really was not time for reprinting.

Mr. Eden: May I with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ask if there is any precedent for taking the Third Reading of a Bill in which changes of importance have been made without there being before the House a copy of the Bill incorporating the changes? I admit that the Third Reading often follows the Report stage rapidly—

Mr. Michael Stewart (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): There is a copy here.

Mr. Eden: It is true that there is one copy here, but does the hon. Gentleman think that is enough? There is more than one Member of the House, and every Member is entitled to a copy. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that interruption. That shows just the mentality we want to avoid. The fact that there is one copy available is not enough. All I ask is that it should not be regarded as a precedent that we are now being asked to discuss a Bill of which there is only one copy on the Table.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There was one vital Amendment which makes the Bill to which we are asked to give a Third Reading much different from the one dealt with on the Report stage. It is important for Private Members to have an opportunity of seeing the revised Bill in order to see the actual form in which it appears for the Third Reading. The proper course would be to defer the Third Reading until the change is made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am advised that there are quite a number of Precedents, but I certainly sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In this instance there was not, in fact, sufficient time. The circumstances will be borne in mind, so that this will not become a precedent.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, draw your attention to the fact that when we have a Third Reading following quickly on the Report stage, it is usually a Bill which is not of a very contentious nature? This Bill was very highly contentious and one on which very many hon. Members voted differently from the way they usually. vote. We have not got a copy and we do not know how the Bill now reads. Does that not add


gravely to our difficulties today, when many hon. Member on all sides of the House are seriously exercised in their minds on this subject?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On the point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is not the issue very simple—whether this Third Reading can proceed under the present circumstances, without the Bill, completed as a result of what took place on the Report stage? If that is so, was there any right for the hon. Members who have spoken, to raise and Debate this point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members have a perfect right to raise proper points.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it seems to me that our request for more time is quite reasonable, because when the discussions on the Report stage finished on Monday evening, it was quite clear that the Third Reading would not be taken the following day.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question of time is not a point of Order nor does it rest with the Chair.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Then may I put my point in a slightly different way? The vital Amendment to this Bill was one dealing with Scotland. It was taken on Monday when a large number of Scottish Members were away from the House. Now they are asked to give their final decision. The Government have had nearly three days in which to have the Bill printed, but are not giving us an opportunity to see it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a question of merits, and not a point of Order.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I am sorry this situation has arisen. It is not the first time such a situation has arisen in this House; complaints have been made before about the short time hon. Members are able to have a reprinted Bill in their hands. There have been a number of cases. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would give me a chance to make a statement of three or four consecutive sentences without interruption. I do not as a rule interrupt others. Am I not right in saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that

this Bill now, on all major issues, including the controversial point which the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. H. Morris) made, is substantially the same as it was when it was introduced on Second Reading?

Hon. Members: What about Scotland?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: It is not the same; it is the opposite.

Mr. Greenwood: It is substantially the same, Scotsmen, after all, are less than 10 per cent. of the population of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman may be perfectly correct as far as figures go—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is really not a point of Order. I would be grateful if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not make a pretext for asking a question as a point of Order, when it is one of merits.

Mr. Eden: With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman-the Lord Privy Seal was in the middle of his speech. He was explaining to us how a major change in the Bill was no change at all, and I should be most reluctant to stop that speech. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry his explanation to a conclusion.

Mr. Greenwood: As regards the question of licences, the Bill, so far as England and Wales are concerned, is as it was when introduced into this House. The one change which has been made at the wish of the Scottish people—and it is their business and not ours—is that the provision does not apply to them. Therefore, in my submission if the House is reasonable, it will be admitted that none of the hon. Members has missed an opportunity, and therefore we might well proceed with the Third Reading.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether the Government have made any attempt to get the Bill printed in time for today?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not know that it is the Government's business; it is the machinery of the House which is concerned with that.

4.34 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In the absence of my right hon. Friend, it gives me great pleasure to move the Third Reading of what is a very short, but at the same time, as I think hon. Members will agree, a very important Bill. It makes a most important contribution to the social legislation of the country, particularly that legislation which is administered by local authorities. We have during the past years given local authorities powers to operate services ranging from refuse collection to symphony concerts, from public baths and wash-houses to ballet dancing in the parks. Now we propose to empower them to conduct restaurants, and to engage in all those activities normal to the catering trade.
I confess that at times during the passage of this Bill I have marvelled at the objections which have been raised by hon. Members opposite; objections which I am sure, they will in time agree had little substance. I am convinced that hon. Members opposite who have opposed this Bill at every stage, will, in a few' years time, when their constituency has a civic restaurant in its midst, reluctantly confess that the civic restaurant is conferring benefits on their constituents. I see opposite me today many hon. Members representing seaside resorts. I had expected to receive support from those hon. Members but throughout, they have been particularly vocal in opposition.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Why should they support it?

Dr. Summerskill: I will tell the hon. Member if he will exercise patience. I think hon. Members representing seaside resorts will agree it is significant that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has not raised his voice in opposition, although there are many civic restaurants operating successfully in Bournemouth.

Sir P. Macdonald: The right hon. Member for Bournemouth is not in this country.

An hon. Member: He is ill.

Dr. Summerskill: If I recollect aright, on the Second Reading of this Bill the

right hon. Member for Bournemouth was sitting on the front Opposition bench. I remember he interrupted me on two or three occasions, not on the merits of the Bill but because I think he was feeling in that mood. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) asked me why hon. Members representing seaside resorts should support this Bill. I recognise that hon. Members have fought valiantly for those constituents of theirs who are conducting catering establishments, but surely the real wealth of a seaside resort is derived from its visitors, and a progressive seaside local authority devotes a great deal of time in planning to increase the amenities of its town in order to attract more visitors. Sea air and bands on the pier may be very desirable, but I should have thought that, for the lowest income groups, cheap and wholesome food is the first essential of a successful holiday, and this the civic restaurant undertakes to provide. I dare to predict that when hon. Members from these seaside resorts who have opposed this Bill face their constituents, perhaps at a meeting during the period regarded as a holiday, they may have interjections from those people who would have been deprived of this benefit if hon. Members opposite had had their way.

Mr. Marlowe: Holiday makers are not our constituents.

Dr. Summerskill: I have already explained that they are not the hon. Member's constituents, but surely the town the hon. and learned Gentleman represents, Brighton, derives its wealth from the holiday makers? At the times I visit Brighton during the summer, the promenade is congested with holiday makers spending money. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents that town should have had them in his mind when he was opposing this Bill?
Fears have been expressed that the restaurants will either become too enterprising or that they will fail to display initiative and will be run at a loss. Hon. Members need not be apprehensive. This, after all, is not a completely new venture. We have had a trial run in the British Restaurants, and those hon. Members who have a British Restaurant in their constituency will agree that, for the most part, they have been extremely successful. These restaurants have been conducted by responsible representatives


of the town, and these people have not shown a desire to indulge in anything but what might be regarded as legitimate trade. Unfortunately, some hon. Members are apt to regard a civic restaurant as a sinister competitor in the catering field. This has not proved to be so in the large number of cases where these restaurants have prospered. I have examined the returns of many hundreds of British Restaurants in this country, and I have been convinced that the British Restaurant and private establishment are not mutually exclusive, but complementary to each other.
Powers contained in the Bill give the right to local authorities compulsorily to acquire sites, and this has provoked a certain amount of opposition. Since the Committee stage, I have made further inquiries into the matter. I want to explain to the House that people who operate a catering establishment in an area which may be compulsorily acquired, will be fully safeguarded.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): May I ask a question? The hon. Lady has raised a question which was dealt with in Committee, when she said that this happened in Coventry. We have now heard that nothing of the sort happened, and no alternative sites were offered there.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) very courteously came to me the day before yesterday, and said he would raise this matter. Therefore, I was anxious to explain to hon. Members who heard my first statement, that since I made that statement, the town clerk of Coventry has made a further communication to us to the contrary. I will deal with Coventry now, because it was on the Clause dealing with compulsory purchase that the right hon. Member for Southport brought up this matter. Hon. Members of the Committee will remember that I was told a certain injustice had occurred in Coventry, owing to compulsory acquisition of land. I feel you might rule me out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this matter, and perhaps it is not proper to discuss the domestic matters of Coventry city council. But the Chairman of the Committee gave me an opportunity to make a statement after Clause 4 was dealt with, and I think I ought to amplify it at this point, because I understand that the matter is to be raised later on. Hon. Mem-

bers will remember that I said the town clerk had told me that the "Geisha" café was on a site which was to be compulsorily acquired. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has just said that the owner of the "Geisha" café had not been offered an alternative site. I understand that powers are embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which compel a local authority to offer an alternative site. If I am wrong hon. Members will dissent, but I think I am right. Although the owner of the café may not yet have settled on a site, I understand that powers are there, and he will be given one. Hon. Members will agree that the powers which have been exercised at Coventry under the Town and Country Planning Act have no relevance to this Bill at all.
The point I wanted to make in regard to Coventry was this. We asked the town clerk to let us know what restaurants might be acquired situated in an area to be compulsorily acquired under the Town and Country Planning Act, and he devoted himself to that question. I told hon. Members that the town clerk had no knowledge of a "Barrack Square Cafe," although the right hon. Member for Southport told me that the cafe in which he was interested was the Barrack Square Cafe. The town clerk now tells me that there is a Barrack Square, but there is no intention to acquire that compulsorily under town planning. There is a Barrack Square Cafe. The city council of Coventry own the cafe, and for some time have been considering terminating the tenancy. They are considering putting a civic restaurant on that site. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a little improper for us to speculate on the reasons why a local authority want to terminate a tenancy. The last thing I want to do is to cause anyone any embarrassment over this question.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: You have been kind enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to allow this matter to be raised. It was an exceptional case, and the chairman of the Committee did allow the statement. I am, quite frankly, staggered at the action of the town clerk of Coventry. It is inconceivable to me how a man in that position could provide the hon. Lady on two separate occasions with completely misleading information. It just is not


true. Naturally, in perfect good faith, the hon. Lady said that the town clerk knew nothing about the Barrack Square Cafe—

Mr. Hopkin Morris: On a point of Order. No doubt this is very interesting, but a discussion on the conduct of the town clerk of Coventry cannot be in Order in this Debate. What is in Order is what powers the Bill gives to local authorities.

Mr. Hudson: The whole gravamen of the charge was that those powers should be used, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food stated in Committee they would be used, in
A fair field and no favour."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee C; 10th December 1946, C. 42.]
We are not criticising the town clerk, but we are criticising the fact that, in the only known case, the action taken disproves what the hon. Lady said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The right hon. Gentleman has not been asked and, therefore, is not entitled to make a speech now. The hon. Lady should now continue her speech. Personally I am puzzled as to what this about Coventry has to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Dr. Summerskill: Finally, I want to deal with compulsory purchase. I have made further inquiries, and I find that in cases where a local authority decides to acquire a site on which there is already a catering establishment, the local authority must, in the first place advertise its intentions. It has, of course, to inform the owner, and if any valid objection is lodged, a public inquiry will take place. The results of the public inquiry will then be examined by the Minister of Health, who will then decide whether the acquisition is to go forward. I think hon. Members will agree that the owner is safeguarded. I would remind hon. Members that when we are talking about a catering establishment, it might mean a kiosk where cups of tea and sandwiches are served, or it might mean a shop where fried fish is served. It would be quite unreasonable to impede the progress of town planning by denying the local authority compulsory power to acquire a site on which a catering establishment is situated.
I will say a word about the licensing provisions. I remind the House that they merely confer on the local authority powers possessed by every catering establishment in the country. I see the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) in his place. I want to assure hon. Members from Welsh constituencies that they need have little fear that these powers will be abused. I have a special interest in Wales. I understand and admire its culture and its customs. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen will agree that the local authority representatives in Wales are probably better known to their electors than those in England. In fact the relationship is entirely different. I believe I am right in saying that a councillor there is often chosen because of his personal qualities, and not necessarily because of his political affiliations. Therefore, in Wales one finds the councillor very near the people.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is familiar with the culture of Wales, and she will be familiar too with the national conscience of Wales, which is as strong as national conscience in Scotland, and which desires exemption in the same way.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, but I think the hon. and learned Member will agree that legislation in Wales is not the same as it is in Scotland. That is why my right hon. Friend decided that Scotland must be dealt with in a different manner. To continue with what I was saving about Wales, the hon. and learned Member will, I think, agree that the councillor is very near his people. That is the safeguard. It will be difficult, in Wales, for a member of a local authority to be irresponsible in the matter of administering this particular provision. May I say a word to the Scottish Members? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I see opposite me a number of Scottish Members, including the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling).

Sir William Darling: [here is one behind the hon. Lady.

Dr. Summerskill: I want to assure them that the necessary machinery to implement the pledge given to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will be forthcoming. I believe that every hon. Member, from whatever part of the


country he comes, will find that a well-conducted civic restaurant will add to the amenities of his constituency, provide for a long felt want, and provide not only good fare but good cheer, and particularly it will introduce a little variety for those people who lead dull and monotonous lives.

4.53 P.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was an important Bill. The Minister of Food, when moving the Second Reading; referred to it as "a small Measure." I am certain that the hon. Lady is right. It is an important Bill and is intended by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be an important Bill. It is therefore, regrettable that the hon. Lady's speech was so short and scrappy, and very largely taken up with breezes on the front at Brighton, and an account of rather remarkable goings on in Coventry. In this House, it is most desirable, when an important Measure reaches its Third Reading, that the arguments for and against it should be properly marshalled. That was, I understand, the old tradition of the House. I do not think that the hon. Lady would pretend that she has marshalled the arguments at all.
Justified tributes have been paid by both sides of the House to the services provided by British Restaurants during the war. I have no doubt that these institutions, under the less robust name now conferred upon them, will equally find a great many customers in peace. The reason for that, as every hon. Member knows, is that any institution or shop of any sort selling unrationed food at the present time will always be popular. That is not, of course, because the existing traders are unwilling, or indeed unable, to supply the need, provided only that they could get the food and the facilities to extend. There are plenty of people who can give much better service in their own shops, and a great many who are very anxious to start up if they could get the necessary facilities. I have myself written at least 12 times to the hon. Lady asking for more fat for fish fryers, and for such things as permission for ex-Servicemen to start up village food shops. She has generally refused these requests. I do not in any way blame her for that. She has to work within the global amount

of food that she can get hold of. The important thing about this Bill is that we are not giving more food to the people. What we are doing is municipalising a certain proportion of it.
The political controversy on municipal trading is a very old one, and dates well back before the days when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain pushed forward municipal trading in the last century. I will touch briefly on two of the old arguments. I say briefly, because although they are important, it is the new arguments that now need to be driven home. The first and most obvious of the old arguments against municipal trading of this sort was that an existing trader might be taxed to subsidise a competitor. In Clause 3 (2) it is laid down that a civic restaurant must be solvent within three years, but the Clause proceeds to make heavy qualifications to that provision. What it amounts to is that the Minister is empowered to allow a restaurant to go on indefinitely whether it is paying its way or not. Under Clause 3 (2, b) he may do this if he thinks that circumstances may change. The Minister of Fuel and Power has been waiting for circumstances to change ever since he has been in office. Mr. Micawber waited the whole of his life for circumstances to change. If he, the Minister, waits for circumstances to change he could very well go on indefinitely keeping going a non-solvent concern subsidised by the rates—and subsidised at the expense of the existing trader. That is the first of the old arguments. The second is the extreme scepticism which many of us on these benches feel about municipal accounting in these matters. If one looks at the Bill one sees that the form of accounts is to he as prescribed by the Minister. I do not think that we have yet had satisfactory answers on such points as whether, in fact, a true economic rent will be charged, and whether proper provision will be made for depreciation.
I will now leave the old arguments. I wish to deal with much more important arguments which have only been lightly put so far. The conditions under which a private trader operates today in this country are very different from those of the time of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. Any trader of any sort in this country is dependent, in order to earn his living,


on the favour of a number of Ministers and on the favour of his local authority. He is dependent on their favour to get the food he must sell, the fats for his cooking, for his fuel—coal, electricity and gas; he is dependent upon them for his linen and his clothes, even for getting a small repair done or lick of paint applied. He is dependent on them in any case of structural alteration or rebuilding or launching out into any new venture. Therefore, we have the position that that private trader is absolutely in the pockets of those Ministries and his local authority, very often acting together.
I would ask Members in all parts of the House to consider this question: Do they honestly believe that when it comes to the sharing out of scarce resources, the private trader will get an equal share with the local authority? I do not think it will happen. I think that the local authority is bound to get a preference. The Minister said in Committee that he was all for a fair field and no favour. Under these circumstances we shall not get that. In our present economic condition the purchasing power and the value of money are steadily diminishing, but at the same time the value and importance of the coupon, the docket, the licence, the permit and above all the value and importance of the favour of officials are steadily increasing. The small trader therefore is faced with a most difficult position. I well remember that during the election hon. Gentlemen opposite said a great deal about their care for small traders, and some of the small traders may have believed it: This is a serious warning to them.
I turn now to the licensing question. The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), who is the expert on this matter, has now gone out and I am no longer under his eagle eye. He raised the question of this pledge on the non-licensing of civic centres. I actually signed that pledge, but I will not enlarge upon it now, because hon. Gentlemen opposite have already so many pledges in the pawnshop that it is hardly worth while taking this one down from the peg. The defence of the licensing provisions has taken a number of varying forms, and the hon. Lady just now repeated one of the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food. He has been very subtle on this matter and has used the strategy of indirect approach,

because he realised that this was a provision which would be offensive to a great many people in all parties all over the country. He further realised that he could not defend it on the ground that a licence was necessary for the restaurants, because in fact they have got on during the war, and are getting on now, quite well without this particular provision.
He therefore tried various indirect methods of justifying it. One first method he tried was to say that he could not be the judge, that this was a matter which every local authority must decide for itself, and far be it from him to take away power of any sort from local authorities. The workers he said and the people of this country were now fully adult and able to make this decision for themselves. That, boiled down, is what he said. I have two comments to make on that argument. The first is that what he is really doing is to say to an urban district council, "We are taking away your hospital, your electricity undertaking, your gas works, your buses, and we will probably manage to contaminate your water supply, and therefore your real function has gone. You are already retired, and the Government will do for you what has been done for many other respectable retired people—we will let you keep a pub." The second comment that occurs to one is that if the criterion for giving these powers is whether the people are adult or not, and whether they are able to judge these things for themselves, how strange how extremely depressing it is that the Scottish people have not yet attained maturity or adult status. They are still adolescents throwing snowballs at each other in the arctic gloom.
The next, and even more subtle, form in which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to defend this was by saying that after all it was probably wrong, but it would not happen very often. He said he thought that in many cases councils would not apply for these powers, and in many cases when they did apply for them they would not be granted. That seems to me very like the argument of those who defend the judicial whipping of children on the ground that most benches do not inflict it. One cannot really defend a thing on the ground that most people will not do it; it is a poor argument.
I should like to comment on the question of the difference between Scotland and


Wales on which the hon. Lady has touched? The excuse for excluding Scotland, as the House will remember, was the difficulty over the difference between the licensing laws of Scotland and this country. The Minister said it would be very wrong if a council were to be judge and jury in its own cause. I hope he will go on thinking that, because if he does he must vote against the Third Reading of the Electricity Bill, the Town and Country Planning Bill, and the Transport Bill, because the Government are taking powers to be judge and jury in their own cause in every one. It was not a very difficult thing to get round. The Minister, on Report, went so far as to say that this difficulty about the licensing laws in Scotland made it impossible to apply this Clause to Scotland. If hon. Members will believe that they will believe anything. The last person who believes it is the Minister. He did not believe it on Second Reading, and he most emphatically did not believe it upstairs, because when he was talking to the Committee on this point he said:
The Bill, as it stands, without any Amendment whatever, can apply to Scotland. There is a question of interest and doubt on the licensing provisions of the Bill, and there is an Amendment down in the name of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. … Even without that Amendment—which I tell the Committee at once I am prepared to accept—which will make the position perfectly clear, the Bill as it stands can apply to Scotland "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 10th December, 1946, c 26.]
I do not think that anyone can really doubt that the whole matter is a put-up job. I very much wish the Minister were here. I understand he is now carrying on his duties among the fleshpots of America. I thought that on Report stage he showed that curiously pervasive vulgarity which is so typical of Etonians who have taken the wrong turning like himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would have liked to enlarge on that subject, but as he is not here, I will pass the matter over in relative silence.
On the subject of Wales, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) has pointed out, since the Licensing Act of 1881 Wales has had different licensing laws from England. Temperance is a matter about which people in Wales are as concerned as people in Scotland, or probably more so. But what has hap-

pened? Hon. Members opposite have got hold of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and have bullied him to such a degree that he has gone to the Ministry of Food and insisted on Scotland being taken out of the Bill. I would say to my hon. Friends and colleagues in the Welsh Parliamentary Party that this is a very great lesson to us, and if it were in Order I would say that that lesson is that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales.
That is all I have to say. I sum up by asking hon. Members in all parts of the House—because this is a matter on which the parties are divided—to reject this Bill firstly because, while doing nothing whatever to increase the food supply to the people, it does and must act unfairly on existing traders; to reject it secondly because its licensing provisions are offensive to a great many people, and lastly because the Bill is offensive to Wales.

5.9 P.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald: I was very surprised to hear the hon. Lady, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, bring in the seaside resorts and say she could not understand why hon. Members representing the seaside resorts should not support this Bill. I thought I had told her, and the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this Bill, on more than one occasion, both upstairs and on the Floor of this House, many reasons why seaside as well as other resorts should reject this Bill. A very excellent reason has been advanced by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and it is a most obvious one. If seaside resorts were to be given more food as a result of civic restaurants being opened, instead of special powers being given to open civic restaurants at the expense of the people who are now paying rates and taxes and trying to keep their establishments going all the year round in order to be able to cater for summer visitors, there might have been some sense in it.
This Bill gives powers to local authorities, without hating to prove that there is a consumers' need in the district, although that has to be proved by anybody else wishing to open a catering establishment in a district, to make compulsory purchases, to run at a loss for five years or more, to sell liquor, all of these being things that would be very much welcomed by existing catering establishments


at seaside resorts and, indeed, anywhere else. But these powers are denied to them. It is for that reason we maintain that for the Minister to talk about a fair field and no favour is utter and complete humbug.
This Bill is humbug from beginning to end. To describe it, as the Minister did, as a simple Measure is ridiculous, for it has the most wide and vicious implications in the few Clauses which it contains, and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has not said anything today to convince me otherwise. As to the seaside resorts, one of which I represent in the House, unless the Minister is prepared to increase the quantity of food that is allocated to the area, there is no likelihood of any of the local authorities in it asking for powers to start civic restaurants, because they are fair-minded people, and they realise that to do so would be unfair to the existing establishments which are prepared, if a consumers' need is proven and further quantities of food are made available to them, to extend their business and meet all the catering requirements for the area, and to do it all the year round, without increasing the rates or the taxes by running catering establishments at a loss. I take the strongest exception to this Measure and I shall vote against it.
The argument has been made, and no doubt it will be trotted out again, that every hon. Member on this side of the House who opposes the Bill does so because he represents the brewery interests. That is utter and complete nonsense. I do not represent, and never have represented any brewers' interests. I wish I did, for it is one of the industries which so far has escaped nationalisation. Indeed, this Bill is only a first step towards the nationalisation of the catering industry If local authorities are stupid enough to do the dirty work for the Government in taking over establishments and setting up civic restaurants and pubs, it will need only one more step for the Government to bring in a Bill to swallow them up, as it has done gas, electricity, water supplies, transport, and so on. Local authorities, today, are in the position of being rates and refuse collectors, and if the present Government are in office much longer only the refuse will be left to them, because nobody will be able to pay rates. To say that those who oppose the Bill and the Clause which gives licences to civic restaurants to sell

liquor are representing the brewers' interests is wholly and completely wrong, and grossly unfair.
On more than one occasion I have expressed my views on this Bill very strongly. I hope hon. Members will realise what are the implications of the Bill. It is a vicious Bill, introduced under the guise of national necessity, to continue what was indeed a necessity during the bombing raids of the war, when British restaurants were set up for the purpose of providing meals for bombed-out people. I am told that in most districts, although there are a few exceptions, that need does not exist now. Taking it far and wide, I am convinced that catering establishments, given a chance, would provide for all the catering needs of the community. I am convinced they could do that in my constituency, and in any constituency, if they were given a fair chance I strongly oppose the Bill and shall vote against it.

5.15 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: I want to congratulate the Government unreservedly on this Bill; it is a pleasure for me to do things unreservedly. I think that our local authorities, with their energetic, democratic spirit these days, will fully appreciate the opportunities which this Bill gives. I was not on the Committee that considered the Bill, and perhaps the point I want to make was stressed in Committee more than it has been in the House, but I have been surprised how little reference there has been made in the Debates to the person whom I consider will benefit most of all from the Bill. The modern housewife is being invaded by the B.B.C. and by the daily Press with news of what is going on in the outside world, but I do not think anyone in any part of the House would deny that in a modern age, with new opportunities opening before women, in theory, those who have to carry the daily domestic burdens are having a harder time now than they have had for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They are having a harder time because a rising standard of democratic education and awareness makes them now, as never before in the past, alive to the fact that life should have more beauty, more comfort—

Vice - Admiral Taylor: Less food?

Miss Lee: The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) may not know that some of them already have more food.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Tell that to the Marines.

Miss Lee: The hon. and gallant Member has made a fascinating interjection. I tell it to my constituents in Cannock. If any hon. Members opposite were to come into the midst of a typical mining audience, or an audience of engineers who were on part time before the war, and ask them about the milk which the children can have now, and the general level of food in their homes now, they would say that it is better than it was before.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs): Given by the Coalition Government.

Miss Lee: Is the hon. and gallant Member agreeing or disagreeing with me? We must, in this House, try to get the facts straight, because a great portion of the daily Press is continually misinterpreting them. As far as food is concerned, our country is going through a very bad time, for reasons known to all of us; but now, in the depth of our difficulties, I assert that there are millions of poor families in Great Britain who are getting a fairer share of the nation's food than they did before the war, when the shops were full of goods, and there was no lack of rich harvests.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Lady says that people have more food now than they did before. If that is so, why is there great necessity for all these restaurants?

Miss Lee: The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. I will try again to explain what I mean. Some people are getting more food than they did before the war. Other people are getting less, or getting poorer qualities. All of us on this side are proud of the fact that in time of scarcity the children, the weakest and the poorest and those in the most exposed positions, are given a fairer share. Some of us in this House may not be getting the variety and the luxury that we would like, but I assert again, and no hon. Member would challenge the assertion that there are millions

of families in Great Britain—of agriculture workers, miners and others—formerly unemployed or on short time who are getting a fairer share of such things than they got before. I am sorry that I have been taken off the line of argument upon which I began.
I was saying that the modern woman has now a vision which we, on this side of the House, intend to see materialised, of how life can have more grace and more comfort than at any time in the past. By this Bill our local authorities will have an opportunity to give to our women something more than food. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) stressed, as other hon. Members have done, that the Bill will not increase the total quantity of food that we have to distribute. That is true, but there is another thing to be considered. I have been observing these matters very closely in my own area and in other parts of the Midlands. I can assure him that a great many women who are working alone a great deal in their houses during the day suffer from the loneliness and the monotony of their work. Even more than do men who have been out in some other place earning their living during the day, they need companionship and company. They need an opportunity to exchange points of view, not only about domestic matters but about things generally. Again and again, some of the best of our working-class matrons find that the only place they can go to in the evening is the public house, to which they may not want to go.
I could take hon. Members to parts of our cities where, in the evening, life closes down, and all is lonely and drear. About the only bright place to which people can go is the public house. I was brought up in Scotland where the thought of a woman crossing the threshold of a public house meant that she lost all reputation, but I have learned in England to recognise that we have very different customs and cultures in this small island. I know many women in the Midlands who keep their houses spotlessly clean and are fine women in every way who do not mind accompanying their husbands or friends to the local pub in the evening, to have a glass of beer.
The Bill will enable the most imaginative, thoughtful and enterprising local authorities to create real folk houses in


the evening, where, if a man prefers a cup of tea to a glass of beer he will not be considered a cissey, and if a woman wants a glass of beer instead of a cup of tea she will not be regarded as a hussy. The division that we have in this country between the tea drinkers and the beer drinkers is a historical hangover. We are living now in a world where most of us are trying to get rid of barriers and false prejudices separating racial and religious groups. Why all this segregation of beer drinkers from tea drinkers? Even here in this House the same distinction is preserved. The other day I had, as visitors here, a charming couple, friends of mine. I know their customs because I have been entertained by them in their cottage home. I knew that father wanted a glass of beer. and I knew that mother wanted a cup of tea They came here just after 6 o'clock in the evening. The facilities offered in this House are completely archaic. They are most ungracious. At that time in the evening I could either go into the pub with dad, or into that long coffin-shaped room, facing the terrace, for tea. I decided to go to the tea room, push along the tray and get a cup of tea for "Ma," but I could not go to both places at once. It was suggested to me that I should carry a cup of tea into the bar. I make that point in passing. This House could set an example of modest but gracious hospitality. At present it does not do so. I hope that some of our municipalities will set us an example. The powers conferred by this Bill enable them to do so.
I want our civic restaurants to be luxurious and to be designed with the psychology that recognises that if people have comfortable homes they will not want to go out to uncomfortable restaurants or cinemas. If people have uncomfortable homes that is all the more reason why our communal places should give them not only comfort but the stimulus and example of good design. Anyone who saw the long queues of people waiting to be admitted to the "Britain Can Make It" exhibition will realise the enthusiasm of the people of this country for beauty and design Frankly, when entertain friends, sometimes from America and sometimes from Europe, I am not proud, to put it mildly, of the places that our private enterprise has provided, before, the war and since. Where can I take my friends?
We have a few expensive restaurants, but the general level for ordinary pockets is not good. I am hoping that, by their beautiful walls, roofs, flooring, lighting and lamps, and fittings generally, our civic restaurants will be made by our local authorities into shop fronts, in which we can show off the best of good British design and good taste. I have been in some civic restaurants and enjoyed them and I have been in many others that I did not enjoy. I would like to see a little thought and vision displayed, rather than the genteel bleakness which was no doubt necessary in some places in the war days, but which should be abandoned in favour of more pleasing designs.
I hope that our local authorities will plan places of beauty for our people. If they will make the best use of the powers that we are giving them they will be doing a great deal to bring families together. Some women accompany their menfolk to the pubs. Others stay at home and sometimes suffer from isolation. It is very hard for a woman to have to choose between virtue and a glass of indifferent beer which she does not want anyhow.
I make an appeal to beer drinkers. Hon. Members opposite appear to be scared of appearing as friends of the brewers. Apparently I am the first friend of the brewers who has spoken, for I have a suggestion to make to the fellow who wants more beer than he is getting at the present moment. Why does he not realise that the pubs have almost a monopoly now? Most plans for civic restaurants are still plans that belong to the future. There is nothing to prevent our publichouses serving teas. Why do not, the fellows who want more beer, encourage their local pubs to serve hot tea when it is demanded, as well as beer? I have seen too many women, in recent times, urged "to be a sport," and have a glass of beer, when they did not want it. I suggest to beer drinkers that they would do themselves a bit of good, and that the brewers would do themselves a bit of good also, by my proposal. The brewers have practically a monopoly. They have the facilities and they have the power. I am not talking about special war conditions. The brewers want people to buy drinks and to stand a round of drinks. If one has enough money one can afford to stand drinks all round. A person can get a reputation for generosity without hurting himself in the slightest. But it is extremely


embarrassing if a person has to stand a round of drinks and he cannot afford to do it.
I hope that a great deal of that social embarrassment where people are asked to drink too much or to drink when they do not want to drink at all, will be ironed out by the provision of gracious civic restaurants where one can have beer, sherry or tea as one pleases. I hope that they will be places where men, women and children, will be able to go with happiness and freedom. My last point is to urge that these civic restaurants should give mother an opportunity when she goes out in the evening to be served properly. She has been working hard at home and making meals all day long. She should not have to push a little tin tray round the civic restaurant, but, for a change, she should be properly served and waited upon.

5.31 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs): I do not propose to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) in the very persuasive argument she advanced in favour of this Bill. I merely propose to make a few comments of my own. This Bill is now divided like Gaul into three parts, Scotland, England and the rest—the rest being Wales and Cornwall. As they have been ignored in the Bill, I also will have to ignore them. That leaves me with two parts. I am afraid that this Bill is just one further example of the failure of the Government to understand Scotland. We are again dragged into an English Bill. There is not the slightest conception on the part of the Government or the Scottish Office that Scotland has a different philosophy, a different mentality and, I would suggest, even a different morality to England. However, while I must register those facts in my protest against being tagged en to England once again, I realise we must accept the Bill as it is.
For that reason, and from that point of view, I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on bowing to the storm of Scottish opinion in regard to licensing. He has shown a wisdom that might well have been followed by the Minister of Food, or the Parliamentary Secretary who is now representing him. I have never known Scotland to be more united upon any subject with the possible exception

of Prestwick, than they have been on this question of licensing. Indeed, it has been a most unique and unusual experience for me, and for most of my Scottish colleagues, in that we have been supported by the most irreconcilable and hitherto divergent elements in the community. The Churches, for whom we have naturally a great respect, the great temperance societies, among them the British Women's Temperance Association, which is one of the most respected bodies in our country, and the "trade" have all been united. They have been united to such an extent that at times I felt that if a General Election were happily to take place in the near future, I would not need to argue the general incompetence of the Government or the particular fatuity of the Minister of Fuel and Power to ensure that my majority was once more restored to its normal proportions.
I opened many of these restaurants under the old title of British Restaurants, and I opened them gladly. In wartime, they served a most useful purpose. They provided cheap and good food for the many workers who were torn from their homes and dumped in unusual surroundings. Also, they provided a centre for mutual intercourse and understanding. As many of our working visitors came from England—and the South of England at that—they undoubtedly served a great and special service in Scotland. For that reason, I would have welcomed this Bill if I had thought that it was intended that these places should be used purely as social community centres where young people, and perhaps those not so young, might meet together for gaiety, brightness and dancing as some relaxation from the dark, drab and dreary existence which most of them suffer today.
But, hard-headed and logical idealist that I am, I turn to Subsection (5) of Clause 3 and find that I can discover no acceptable answer to the objections which arise there. As hon. Members will see, that Subsection lays the burden on the ratepayer for three years, or longer, according to the whim of the local authority, to make good the losses of any civic restaurant. In other words, that means that an ordinary restaurant, tea shop or hotel, must subsidise in the form of a direct tax payment its very own competitor in the form of a civic restaurant. That seems to me a fantastic proposal. It


is one to which only Gilbert and Sullivan could do justice.
I come now to the English section of the Bill. I confess that here I am in something of a quandary. When I drafted a few notes for this speech I had assumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food would be in his place. I thought out a few somewhat acid comments to make upon the speech which he made during the Report stage. I thought that that was one of the most unpersuasive and incomprehensible speeches that I had ever heard from a Minister. I thought back to those charming broadcasts which he made during the war, and I asked myself where his capacity had gone. I reminded myself of those powerful arguments he used to use for Mosley's new party, and, further back—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone back far enough.

Sir T. Moore: You just caught me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before I referred to the right hon. Gentleman's Communist affiliations as well. However, I will drop that. What I intended to say was that the quandary in which I find myself is that I am now faced with the hon. Lady, for whom I must confess I have a very deep personal regard. I find myself quite unable to go further. My hands are tied, and my tongue as well, in dealing with the hon. Lady as they would not have been, had the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food been here. I strongly object to the English section of this Bill. I strongly object to civic restaurants having a licence at all. There are two reasons for my objection and they have been referred to by previous speakers. First, as was mentioned the other day, it introduces increased drinking facilities under the cloak of ministering to the feeding requirements of the working population. Second, it introduces unfair competition with the established licensed public-houses which we have throughout our various communities. To my mind, those are fundamental objections which almost dissipate the values which these proposals had when the Bill was first introduced.

Mr. Bowles: I have often heard the expression "unfair competition" used in this Debate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has used it now, as one of his main objections to the Bill. Would

he explain exactly what he means by "unfair competition"?.

Sir T. Moore: Certainly. Possibly the hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I started my speech. I mean that these restaurants will be in competition with the established public houses. If these civic restaurants lose money in competition with the public houses, the public house owners as ratepayers, will have to subsidise from the rates their own competitors, and that, to my mind, is extremely unfair. Therefore, I cannot find any justification for this Bill in the terms in which it has been presented to us, and I have not yet found any speech by the hon. Lady, by the Minister or by any hon. Member on the other side capable of persuading me to vote for it.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carrnarthen): There was one statement in the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) in which she dealt with different customs, manners and views on life in various parts of the country, including that which she represents. I fully agree with the hon. Lady, but it is very difficult to get Whitehall to agree with that view. It is the most difficult thing in this country to get Whitehall to recognise that there is a difference between Wales and England, or between Wales and London, or that there is a similarity between Wales and Scotland—and not merely upon this Bill. The various Departments of Whitehall all have the same view, and this has been revealed in this Debate.
I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I used on the Report stage, but there is one matter to which I wish to draw attention. It is a point which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). It is an important point, and it concerns a new development in this Parliament. This new development is that many important Bills are being sent upstairs for discussion. We are losing control of them, and that loss of control is a very important thing, from the democratic point of view and from the point of view of the electors. We have, at the moment, four major Bills upstairs. I am not going to allude to these Measures, I merely wish to say, that that being so, the decision of a Committee upstairs assumes a far greater importance than it had under our normal procedure. In these new circumstances, we have a Committee


upstairs, carefully selected and with a Government majority, in which there cannot be an adverse vote against the Government, except with the support of the Government's own supporters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and learned Member is not in Order, on Third Reading, to go into detail as to what happened on the Committee stage.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I do not want to pursue that further. I have done all that I wanted to do, and the point had already been brought to the attention of the House. On the Report stage of this Bill, a large number of supporters of the Government, with great courage and independence, refused to vote for the bad provisions inserted in this Bill. I am in substantial agreement with the hon. Member for Flint, that there might be an argument for saying that, apart from the licensing provisions, it might be a desirable Bill to pass into law, but, since these licensing provisions have been introduced during the last stage of the Bill, I hope that, while there is yet time, in another place, the Government will promise to reconsider the matter and perhaps remove the whole of these licensing provisions.
The introduction of these provisions has a far wider implication than the mere provision of amenities for the feeding of the people. Especially has it this far wider implication in the smaller towns and the country areas. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give further consideration to this matter before the Bill comes back to this House. I regret that a Government from whom, upon this issue, I, and, I am sure, their own supporters, had expected a very different standpoint and a very different result, should have seen fit, upon the Report stage, to insert this provision in the Bill.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Sargood: I do not intend to intervene in this Debate for long, as I only wish to make reference to one small point, but it is a point which I consider to be a very important one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeatedly cast very serious aspersions upon the accuracy of the accounts likely to be kept by those municipalities which are running these civic restaurants. Apart from the

fact that, as a member of a public authority, I resent very strongly indeed the suggestion that I—or, indeed, any other member of a public authority—am likely to be less efficient and less honest in dealing with my public duties than I am in dealing with my private capacities, I would remind hon. Members opposite that everyone of these accounts of civil restaurants will be submitted to the public auditors. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they would be willing to have the accounts of their own trading concerns audited by the public auditors? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I want to ask them whether they will agree to the same searching audit as that to which the accounts of public authorities are subjected, and I suggest that we ought not to hear any more about these aspersions on the accuracy of the accounts of civic restaurants.

5.48 p.m.

Brigadier Low: The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) has accused us of casting aspersions on the accuracy of the accounts of these civic restaurants, but, in fact, the points which have been made from this side of the House have always been concerned with the form in which the accounts would be presented. Perhaps I might leave that point there
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who has just left her place, was speaking a short time ago of the burden which the housewife is called upon to bear today. I see that the hon. Lady has just returned, and I would say to her that the cause of these burdens is shortages. In fact, I think the hon. Lady will probably agree with me that, in every case, those burdens are due to shortages. How is this Bill going to affect these shortages? Is there, indeed, anything in this Bill which will help to relieve the shortages which are the cause of the housewife's burdens? One would hardly expect the Minister of Food to be introducing a Bill which has anything to do with greater production. We all remember how strongly he has warned us all against the "produce more" cry.
The Minister of Food expressed great enthusiasm for "this small Measure" when he introduced it on Second Reading when he said that he, personally, had treat enthusiasm for it. I think that my


hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has debunked the "smallness" of this Measure, and he was aided by the Parliamentary Secretary herself. It seems to me that to say to this House that the primary object of this Measure is to continue the activities of British Restaurants is nothing more or less than "hooey". The Minister of Food will shortly he able to understand what "hooey" means, if he does not do so already.

Mr. Chater: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Brigadier Low: Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not. The Minister expressed his enthusiasm for this Measure, and, having told us how fond of it he was, has gone off on a mission to Canada. It was interesting to read a report in "The Times" that the British Food Mission's spokesman at Ottawa had said yesterday that there was nothing urgent in the visit of the Minister of Food to Canada and that his talks would be purely routine. If that is so, it seems slightly discourteous for the Minister to leave the country before his Bill has passed its Third Reading, and it also appears to make nonsense of his enthusiasm for it. For the very excellent reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint earlier in the Debate, I propose and I hope that many other hon. Members will do likewise, to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. From the small Measure which this Bill was supposed to be, it has grown to one which is designed to satisfy the Minister's wider purpose, that of extending municipal trading to include the activities of restaurants and ancillary services. It might have been less pernicious had it been left to the courts to decide what were ancillary services. But the Bill goes further than that, and says that local authorities
may carry on such activities incidental or ancillary to the activities aforesaid as they consider necessary or expedient.
Had it been left to the courts to decide what were ancillary services, there might have been some safeguard for the ordinary private man, but under this Bill it is not, apparently, to be left to the courts, but to the local authorities themselves to say what they will do. It is a vast extension of present day municipal trading to allow a local authority, in addition to

carrying on the ordinary activities of a restaurant, to sell biscuits, food and tobacco. From the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite who have spoken during the course of this Debate, that extension has been made specially for the purpose of enabling local authorities to make profits, and thus make a success of the undertaking.
In passing, I would ask the Minister, or whoever is going to reply, to explain how, in the present situation and when of all commodities food is in short supply, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to make the supply of tobacco shorter still, it is supposed that the Government are going to be fair to the private trader if they allow local authorities to set up new shops or new undertakings for the sale of biscuits, food, tobacco, and so on. As the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary knows, she refuses from clay to clay applications made personally by ex-Servicemen and private traders to be allowed to take part in such activities. She also frequently refuses applications sent to her by hon. Members, including myself, on behalf of constituents in cases which we think, and with which she often agrees, are ones of real hardship. How does she justify giving a power to local authorities to start such undertakings? It must be grossly unfair to the private trader, unless the Ministry of Food are going to introduce into this country so much extra food and tobacco. Perhaps the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us about that.

Mr. Mitchison: Am I to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is opposed to the staffing of any new canteen facilities anywhere?

Brigadier Low: Not at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not understand that; he must understand that I am opposed to allowing local authorities, who have, as my hon. Friend said, the favour and the ear of Ministries, to get in front of the large queue of private traders and charitable institutions who are trying to start such enterprises today. I and a great many of my hon. Friends are opposed to that, as are also, I believe, some hon. Members opposite. It is for that reason that so many of us in this House oppose the extension of municipal trading in this way, which, as my hon.


and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) told us a short time ago, can only result in unfair competition.
In her short speech the hon. Lady referred to seaside resorts, and seemed to imply that, in years to come, these resorts would be regretting the action of hon. Members of this side of the House who represent them in voting against this Bill. I cannot understand how she can think that. Surely, she realises that the services which are given in seaside resorts in the form of catering establishments, both large and small, are carried out by private traders. From what I and other hon. Members have said in the course of this Debate, it is quite clear that the introduction of municipal enterprise will be to the detriment of those private traders.
I will finish my argument by stressing once again that this Bill has absolutely no effect on the main problem to which the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock referred, the burden on the housewife due to the shortages. This Bill has simply nothing to do with greater production. If it does anything at all, it will employ more local government servants, and will, therefore, take more men away from productive enterprises. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Why the hon. Member says "Nonsense," I do not understand. He may know how new municipal undertakings can be set up without, ex hypothesi, increasing staffs. The primary purpose of this Bill, if the honest and only true purpose had been to extend British Restaurants where necessary, would be a good purpose. It has been emphasised often enough from this side of the House that that is not its real purpose. I submit that the purpose of this Bill is to widen the exent of municipal trading more than ever before, and to interfere with the legitimate rights of private persons carrying on catering activities. For that reason, I shall vote against it.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: There is a considerable part of this Bill to which I give my very hearty approval, and when the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) talks about the dangers of municipal trading and the defence of the private trader, he is inviting me with all his power to throw

in my lot behind the Minister in support of this Bill. As I said, when the Bill was introduced on Second Reading, I regarded it then and I regard it still as a means whereby a very great and beneficent social change will be carried out. I do not forget the war years, and my experience in this matter. I believed then, and I believe still. that there are great masses of young people for whom entirely inadequate provision is made both as regards the food that is available to them and the opportunities afforded them for meeting one another and for sitting down together and discussing the problems of the day. I saw no provision at all for that requirement. During the war many of us voluntarily sought to extend, as far as possible, the whole idea of the community centre and, using the British Restaurants, to establish better facilities for the people to meet and eat together. On Second Reading I observed that this Bill endeavours to carry out that idea; I said then, as I say now, that we cannot risk the opposition that comes from the benches opposite in this matter. I intend to support the Bill for these reasons.
The Bill had a great blemish which is now more clearly seen after today's discussion. I am afraid the degree of the indelibility of that blemish has been increased by many of the things which the Minister has said. It will be a good exercise after this is all over—and I have no doubt it will be undertaken by some of the Churches and the temperance movements—to peruse all the reasons which the Minister has given for the introduction into the Bill of the parts relating to licensing powers. At one time he was talking about the necessity for permitting licensing facilities in only a few of the restaurants. He mentioned a conversation that he had with the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) who told him that Birmingham, which will probably have 30 or 40 or even more of these civic restaurants, was thinking only in terms of one or two restaurants in the centre of the town because it was thought it might be a good thing as an exception to permit one or two. But in other parts of the discussion he sought to make a case for drinking with meals, claiming that this was a process of temperance education. He was so keen about the idea of everybody having a glass of beer with his meals


that I wanted to know why drink should not be provided in everyone of these restaurants.
When I listened to the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) giving her ideas on the excellence of beer, side by side with the excellence of tea—she put her money on both horses—it occurred to me that she was really making the same sort of point which the Minister had made, and the only conclusion which one could draw from her plea—I am sorry I have to refer to her in her absence, but she will, no doubt, read what I have said—was that she was trying to make out a case for the licensing of every one of these restaurants. In passing, with regard to the question of tea and beer for which she made such a passionate plea, I would say that there is a sort of Gresham's law in this beer and tea question. Beer is left in currency and tea disappears. The public houses have had long enough to try out this experiment of becoming restaurants for the supply of teas if they had wanted to, and if the people who go to public houses had wanted it. But that situation has not developed. Indeed, very often where the attempt has been made beer has been left triumphant. My feeling about these restaurants is that the more we bring in these licences the more we shall fail to produce in the civic restaurant the type of institution which would really serve the highest social purpose.
Another thing I must say before we take leave of this Bill is that I think it is most unsatisfactory that we should accept the possibility of running these restaurants successfully in Scotland without licences, and pretend that the situation in England is different and that licences are required in order to make a success of this enterprise. I think better of England than that. I am sure there is as good a chance of running the restaurants well in England as they are intended to be run in Scotland. They were run well all through the war. The British Restaurant made its way again and again without the assistance of liquor. There is no reason why the civic restaurant should not continue to do so.
I think, too, that we in the Labour Party must recognise that we have done a very ill service to local politics by the decision which has been taken on the question of licences. Do not let us forget that when a town council discusses

whether a restaurant should have a licence and the facts, get into the Press, the inevitable consequence will be that those who want beer and those who do not want beer will press municipal councils, and a new conflict will be raised in municipal politics as a result of this proposal. This very point of keeping the drink question separate from politics, and putting the choice as a matter of a direct option to the voters, is involved in the decision of the Labour Party to accept local option as its fundamental policy years ago. This is the reason why in some of our Dominions, particularly in New Zealand and in parts of Australia, they preferred to have this question settled by local option so that it could be entirely apart from the other issues. At times the Minister spoke of it as a process of local option. I submit that it is a local option which will bring the drink question into municipal politics to a degree which none of us on these benches really desires, and I am very sorry that it has happened. At any rate, as I have already indicated, while the churches and temperance movements are left to fight in whatever way they can to make this Measure less of a blemish, I hope that an effective effort will be made against the municipalities who want to introduce licences and that successful appeals will be made to the magistrates' courts against them.
I think we ought to have settled the issue here. So far as I am concerned, I have registered my vote and raised my voice in the hope that the fight might have been settled by us here. We have left it to be fought out in the country. It will be very difficult for many of us who have struggled over this question for years, and it will be very difficult for many of my hon. Friends who have in their constituencies many voters who regard this as an extremely serious issue. I wish we had never been troubled by it at all. I think the Minister has done a grave disservice to our party work by his proposal. Although we intend to accept the Bill—I certainly am prepared to vote for it—I will use every means I can to emphasise the necessity to get rid of the processes of licensing wherever it is adopted. Unless the influence of drink can be kept out of any social reform which it is desired to bring about, the drink tends to bring down to a lower level the best that can be attained by an otherwise effectual social effort.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is a great honour for me to follow the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), who has made such a powerful and impassioned speech appealing to hon. Members opposite to vote for this Measure with guilty consciences. I wish to follow the hon. Member on one point only, namely, that many people throughout the country have believed that community centres could be a development of outstanding value to the various communities. There is however no question whatsoever but that, by the introduction of the Clause allowing for the sale of drink the whole project of building the community centres round the civic restaurants has been completely vitiated, and that plan with which this Bill might have set out originally has now been hacked away entirely by the Minister on the Front Bench opposite.
We on this side of the House have always said that we are in favour of civic restaurants, if their necessity can be proved. There is one advantage which civic restaurants have today, and it is that calorifically less and less can be distributed further and further. This is essentially a continuation and a perpetuation of a crisis measure. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question: If the only conceivable advantage of these methods of communal feeding can be that the crisis through which we are passing at the moment is to continue, is the Minister of Food not saying vicariously by the presentation of this Bill that we in this country are to go on living under our present conditions, with shortages of food and shortages of fuel, which make it difficult for housewives to obtain and cook their meals? There, I agree, the civic restaurants may have a use. But they can perfectly well be continued and carried on by means of an Order. They can perfectly well be brought forward, after proving necessity, by Private Act of Parliament, as happened prior to the war. But we cannot assume that the crisis is to continue. The Government have stood by the fact that there will be more food—eventually. At the moment, these restaurants do no good except to the individuals who attend them, and who may get greater calorific values than on the short ration, available
Is it reasonable to suppose that in the years to come this country will continue under this deprivation? Is it reasonable

to suppose there will be a shortage of domestic fuel? Is it reasonable to suppose there will be a permanent shortage of food? I suggest that it is not reasonable to suppose that. What was, in point of fact, happening—there were many signs of it happening—was that the number of people eating in civic restaurants was declining; but since this present crisis they have probably increased. In the natural course of events it would have been expected that the civic restaurants would go out of business. Their numbers and their powers have diminished, and are diminishing, whereas according to the Government by this Bill they ought to be increased. I regard this as a typical reversal of the normal and satisfactory order of things in this country. The object of this Bill is to extend the system of community feeding on a large scale. Normally that would not happen. What people want normally are small restaurants in which they can have a good time and in which they feed at home.

Mr. Jack Jones: It depends what the hon. Member means by "a good time."

Mr. Fraser: What I mean by "a good time" is that normally the restaurants should serve two purposes: the purpose of pleasure, and the purposes of necessity—

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Fraser: Let me finish my sentence. We believe that the need for restaurants is either that of necessity—with which I have already dealt—or that of pleasure. As has been demonstrated by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), these restaurants are not providing the pleasurable surroundings; they merely allow housewives to go out of their homes. I on this side of the House maintain that the home is the basis of the whole social order, yet the housewife is to be encouraged by this Bill to go out of her own home into a communal restaurant, where she is provided with food at a subsidised rate. It is to be subsidised twice: once by the Government and once by the community.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I had not finished my speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to resume his seat and indi-


cate that he is giving way by pointing at another hon. Member.

Mr. Fraser: I intendea to continue, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I sat down in order to give way to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones).

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is not an hon. Member entitled to resume his seat in order to invite another hon. Member opposite to make an interruption?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The noble Lord is incorrect in assuming that that is what I meant. What I meant was that the hon. Member was not in Order in sitting down and pointing to another hon. Member. It is quite in Order, and is an essential part of the Debate, for hon. Members to give way at times.

Mr. Jones: I did rise previously, but the hon. Member asked to be allowed to complete his sentence. It was a rather long sentence. I wanted to ask the hon. Member if he realised, in reference to what he calls "a good time," that to the ordinary working men and women the opportunity to go to a British restaurant and to obtain a meal, as and when they think fit, would be an extremely good time?

Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Member for that interruption. The point I am making is, that at this time we do not want to encourage, on an enormous scale, the restaurant habit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We believe that the best time available to people should be in the home. We also believe that, outside the home, places such as restaurants and clubs should be made available for necessity or for pleasure. We believe the continuation of these wartime measures is, in general, a bad thing. As the hon. Lady said, it is an important social trend. For my part, I believe it is a bad trend.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Member mean it is a bad thing for the women to go out of their homes?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. I was coming to that. I believe the average woman's place is the home. I am sure the Minister of Food might, at moments, have thought that, following on from some of the polemics in which he indulged in his earlier political career. The continued drift away from the home will be in

creased by this Bill. As we can see from some of the Clauses, it is perfectly in order for a municipal authority, when it has charge of such a restaurant, to subsidise it from the rates for at least two years, and to produce food at an absurdly low cost to the consumer. That will lead to a great deal of political jobbery and chicanery.
My hon. Friends on this side of the House have already put the main points of objection to the Bill, but I want to put this one final point. We believe—or, rather, I believe—that it is of great importance that we should see people are given full encouragement to have and to live a private, domestic life in their homes; for the home is the basis of our society; and that basis is better preserved by keeping a decent table in a decent kitchen in one's home, than by our going out to these community restaurants—which will never he community centres, as I pointed out. Let us encourage people rather to enjoy their average evenings at home, and wives to provide decent food for their husbands when they return from work.

6 20 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but I now want to repeat what I said on Second Reading. Speaking as a very strong teetotaller, I cannot see where the Opposition are in regard to this Measure. Yesterday, we were talking of spending millions of pounds more on the educational services, and saying that people had a higher degree of intelligence now. Today we are talking about the fear that young people and intelligent working folk may do certain things. I want to suggest that this Bill should be looked at in the proper perspective. All it seeks to do is to allow local authorities, composed of highly intelligent people—they must be because they have been through the riddle of the opinion of their fellow townsmen—to allow the local authorities the right to ask an intelligent bench of magistrates, justices of the peace appointed for their knowledge of local affairs and social matters, for permission to have licences installed in civic restaurants. That is all that the Bill seeks to do. But one would think that this Bill was dictating to the British working man and his wife and everybody else, compelling them to go to some place where drink is served, and forcing them to partake of it. It is a ridiculous state of affairs.


The whole opposition to this Bill is based upon the view of individual persons towards drink as such —

Sir W. Darling: Not the whole of the opposition

Mr. J. Jones: It the hon. gentleman wishes to intervene I will give way.

Sir W. Darling: I intervene only to say, not the whole of the opposition. There are much greater grounds for our objections even than that of drink.

Mr. J. Jones: I say that there is individual opposition on the ground of drink as such. There are too many individual objections. I listened to hon. Members opposite talking about the restrictions that the Labour Party, they say, is placing upon the workingmen of this country. When an opportunity comes to give the working class in this country the right to decent conditions in which to enjoy a drink, if they want it, at reasonable prices, then we get an outcry of this description. The whole thing is fantastic.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does the hon. Member say that the Secretary of State for Scotland of his own party is fantastic?

Mr. J. Jones: I am not too well versed in Scottish affairs, and I am not wanting to be; and so I am not going to be involved in that question. I am speaking from the ordinary, commonsense man's point of view with regard to this Bill. I am no lawyer, which is a good thing. I do not want to be put in the position of having to prove that one of my right hon. or hon. Friends is right when he is wrong or wrong when he is right. All I want to say is that this Bill seeks an extension of communal feeding in what I hope will be proper conditions provided by the local authorities. That is all there is to it. I will not repeat what I said when I twitted the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Roland Robinson.) I would far rather see our people having a drink, if they desire to have one, in decent conditions—on the Continental system, if they want it, in open spaces—than see them being driven, as they are today in many cases, into dives and hell holes where drink is being served in deplorable

conditions. This thing should be looked at properly.
I remember having a terrible thirst—and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will remember it, too—when neither he nor I could get any water to drink. I remember our water bottles were empty. I noticed that some of our friends were drinking things out of other sorts of bottles, but I would not do so. It is a matter of individual will power.

Earl Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I hope he will make it plain that we both drank water.

Mr. J. Jones: Oh, yes. But I have seen men die—and so has the noble Lord—rather than drink something to which they were averse. I would do anything rather than prevent the working people of this country getting drinks, of all sorts, if they want them, in decent conditions. I think we ought to give people the right to exercise their own intelligence, and the privilege to go where they choose.

6.27 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones); and, more particularly, I do not propose to follow his interesting relationship with the noble Lord on a now long ago occasion. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss J. Lee), who addressed the House in her usual delightful way, made several statements with which one might deal; but there are two on which I should like to comment in passing. I agree very largely with her in saying that, if we are to have these civic restaurants, they should he made as attractive in every possible way as we can make them, in design, furnishing, comfort, and what they produce in the way of food and drink. It is a very desirable thing that the surroundings should be the best that we can get, if we are to have these civic restaurants. I differ from the hon. Lady in that she said that our people in this country are better fed now than they were before the war.

Mr. Gallacher: Millions are.

Colonel Gonune-Duncan: I am referring to the millions. As regards my constituency, which is a combination of urban workers and agricultural workers


—and I think that other Members on this side of the House will agree with me—there is no question about it: they are not so well off in the matter of food as they were before the war. I do not think that such a remark as that—that our people are better fed now than before the war—should be allowed to go without contradiction.
I want to refer, m particular, to the Scottish side of the Bill, which has caused such great disturbance, not only amongst Scots Members, but also—and, perhaps, to a greater degree—amongst English Members and Welsh Members. The Bill was published last year, and, presumably, it was the result of a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet must have agreed to it In that Cabinet is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Now, the Cabinet, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, made it perfectly clear in that Bill which they produced for the consideration of the House, that they wished civic restaurants in Scotland to be enabled to have licences. That was as clear as daylight. In the Second Reading Debate there were protests about this—considerable protests; but the Bill was given a Second Reading with, again, the approval of the Government, and, particularly, of the Secretary of State for Scotland The Committee stage was reached, and then the trouble began. The trouble really arose, I think I am right in saying, over the question whether this Bill did or did not apply to Scotland, or could or could not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S Hudson) was particularly anxious on that point, and so was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). The Minister of Food answered that very clearly indeed; it has already been referred to, and I should like again to make reference to it. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of West minster (Sir H. Webbe) said:
It he can assure us that if the Bill, as 10 is now in front of us, wihout any Amend merit is carried it can apply to Scotland, then my point disappears.
The Minister of Food replied:
The Bill, as it stands, without any Amendment whatever, can apply to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. Tuesday. 10th December. 1946; C 26]
The Minister of Food then went on to mention an Amendment, standing in the name of the Joint Under-Secretary of

State for Scotland, and stated that even without that Amendment the Bill could apply to Scotland. And so there was no doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that it could apply to Scotland. As the House knows, the Government were defeated on that particular Clause. Right at the end of the Committee stage, on the sixth day, the joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland produced a very long and important Amendment, which was thoroughly discussed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport was particularly anxious to know something more about it; it referred to the powers of local authorities in Scotland to borrow money in connection with this Bill. It had apparently been overlooked by the Government until the last minute, which seems to us to be a most extraordinary state of affairs. I should like to ask why it was overlooked. I do not think it would he wrong to say that the subject matter of this Amendment should have been introduced right from the beginning, if the Bill had been properly drafted by the Government. It is deplorable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have allowed the Bill to go forward without such an important Amendment being in it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not sure to which particular Clause the hon. and gallant Member is referring, but I would remind him that we cannot, on Third Reading, deal with matters which are not in the Bill.

Colonel Gomme-Dunean: This Amendment was put into the Bill, although it is not printed in the Bill at the moment, because of this peculiar situation in which we find ourselves tonight. I feel, therefore, that I am justified in referring to it. The climax of this story of Government ineptitude came on the Report stage, when, to our astonishment, we saw that the Secretary of State for Scotland had inserted an Amendment, which was carried, entirely reversing in every respect the subject of licensing as far as it affected Scotland, and yet he, as a Member of the Government, had produced the Bill four months earlier, and had said that he did not approve of Scotland being left out of this matter. As I say, the position was reversed, and he said that Scotland would not now have licences. It was a complete reversal of Government policy, and there is no doubt that there is a


great deal behind it. Protests by English and Welsh Members were made at once, and the Minister of Food stated quite clearly:
We were convinced, although reluctantly, that that difficulty made it impossible to apply this Clause to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c 820.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now discussing something which has been excluded from the Bill.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: This Amendment has been inserted in the Bill, although it has not been printed in it. This Amendment is to the effect that the question of licensing shall not apply to Scotland, and the Minister of Food stated no less than three times that this part of the Bill could not apply to Scotland although, for nearly four months he had said it would apply to Scotland. That is most astonishing, just as the statements of the Secretary of State for Scotland are astonishing. The Secretary of State said four months ago that there would be licensing for Scotland, and then said later there would not be licensing. We have an example here of political tumbling.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member speaks of "political tumbling." Is it not possible for a Scotsman to change the mind of an English Minister?

Colonel Gomm-Duncan: Then why should we have to do the same thing for the Secretary of State for Scotland, because his mind has also been completely changed? This type of acrobatics may be very well for Bertram Mills Circus, but in serious matters in the House of Commons it is most reprehensible on the part of Members of the Government. I have no hesitation in saying that the way these two Ministers have treated this Bill has led to all the trouble we have had in these later stages. I am very sympathetic towards those Welsh and English Members who wonder how it is that Scotland is, first, to have licensing, and then is not to have licensing, and wonder why it should not also apply to them. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information on what really went on. I think that the Amendment, excluding Scotland from licensing, is a good one, but it was put into

the Bill by the Secretary of State for Scotland not for its inherent goodness, but as a piece of political chicanery. It is quite unworthy of him as a Minister, and it is unworthy of the country whose interests he is expected to support.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Kenyon: While giving general support to this Bill, along with many of my colleagues, I feel that I must raise my voice in protest against that part of it which permits intoxicating liquor to be served in these restaurants.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would the hon. Member mind raising his voice a little more?

Mr. Kenyon: I feel that I must protest against the selling of intoxicating liquor in civic restaurants. The Government are making a profound mistake, and their action will receive throughout the country a great measure of disapproval I leave aside the question of whether drink is or is not a good thing, but if it is a good thing to sell liquor why has Scotland been excluded? I fit is a good thing, then surely Scotland also deserves to have it. I should like also to quote from certain speeches from Members on this side of the House, which indicate there is something unsatisfactory about selling or drinking of liquor. May I quote from what my hon. friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said, on 17th February:
I was once a member of a Labour club which sold intoxicant. I oppose Labour clubs of that kind, because that is not the purpose of the Labour movement; it has done indirect injury to the Labour movement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17TH February, 1947; Vol, 433, c. 836.]
There, you have the claim that the selling of liquor in a club did an indirect injury, May I give a second quotation from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) in that Debate, in which he said:
I now refer to British Restaurant 'B'. In my constituency this restaurant is not far removed from some huge cotton mills where are employed many juvenile cotton workers, primarily females. It I were a J.P. in that district, and had to decide whether that restaurant should have a licence, and the restaurant was being used primarily by juvenile female labour, I should think twice before granting it, and so would any justice of the peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1947; Vol. 433. c. 844.]

Major Cecil Poole: Is my hon. Friend quoting those Members as


eminent authorities on this business? Otherwise I do not see that those quotations have any special significance.

Mr. Kenyon: When an argument has been put forward from either side of the House, I think it is within the right of a Member to contest that argument.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Does not the quotation which the hon. Member gave a few moments ago come from the speech of a former Minister, and a very respected member of the Labour Party?

Mr. Kenyon: It was from a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) the other day. He is not a Minister.

Sir P. Hannon: I said "former Minister."

Mr. Kenyon: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The third quotation I wish to make is from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville)—

Mr. Tolley: Will my hon. Friend let us have the other part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Jones), in which he referred to the giving of a licence?

Mr. Kenyon: I would like to make my quotations in my own way. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett visualised a working man and his wife going into a British Restaurant, and he said on first thought:
… there should be places like these … into which a man may take his wife for a meal and a drink, if he so desires. He buys his missus a lemonade.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th February, 1947: Vol. 433, c. 847.]
Why do these Members give u, the impression that there is something about intoxicating liquor which they would exclude from females, and which has admittedly done injury, in certain respects, in dubs? It there is something wrong with intoxicating liquor, no amount of good surroundings will put it right. The claim that we are creating good surroundings in civic restaurants will in no way right a wrong.
Now I want to deal with local option. A local authority submits an application to the magistrates for a licence. Many members of local authorities are also magistrates, and they will be interested

in the matter as magistrates as well as local authority members. Is not that the reason why Scotland has been excluded? The point which faces me, as a licensing magistrate is this: Suppose a local authority submits an application to the magistrates for a licence, and they turn it down. Immediately, there arises, in that area, strong public controversy between the local authority, on the one hand, and the bench of magistrates on the other. While it is true that local authority members are elected by the people, magistrates are appointed. They are not elected and, therefore, the decision rests, not in the hands of elected members, but of appointed members. They do not express the electors' feelings, because they have been so appointed, usually by one person. I feel that this question will create, in a large number of areas, bitter controversy which ought not to exist. I do not feel that magistrates who are doing the work they are doing should be brought into controversy of this nature, and I, as a magistrate, wish to raise my voice in strong objection to it.
Magistrates are bound to take into account all the circumstances which surround the granting of a licence for any premises. In licensed premises, certain conditions govern the granting of their licence. Juveniles are precluded, and young people under 16 must not be served. In British Restaurants an increasing burden will be placed on those who are serving intoxicating liquors, because they will have to judge the ages of young people. In these restaurants there will be a larger number of juveniles than in any other place. The whole position is definitely unsatisfactory. This is a retrograde step, and it will, I am sure, be resented throughout the country.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: With the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), I, and my hon. Friends on these benches, find ourselves in complete agreement. This is a retrograde step. Those were his words, and the hon. Member is right. It was because we, in Scotland, also thought that it was a retrograde step that the licensing provisions of the Bill do not apply to us. Let us, instead of facing the future, face the facts. The facts are as follow: Scotland rose in revolt against this Bill arid compelled the Scottish


Labour Party to change their minds. The churches rose in revolt, the temperance movement, which represents hundreds of thousands of Scottish people, rose in revolt, the youth movements, the local authorities, and the co-operative societies in Scotland rose in revolt. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the brewers."] No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite support the brewers. I noticed that in a recent Debate, the only hon. Member who supported the brewers was an hon. Member on the other side, who spent his time telling us what a fine thing it was to take one's wife into a pub and have a good old bottle of Guinness.

Major Cecil Poole: The hon. Member pointed to me when he said, "An hon. Member on the other side." I should like to make it perfectly clear that I was not the hon. Member.

Mr. Stewart: I did not give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the credit. It was the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville). Scottish opinion, represented by all these bodies, rose in revolt and demanded their Scottish Labour Members to reverse the policy which they had already agreed to. The Scottish Secretary was himself under compulsion to change the Bill as it then was. Why did these bodies rise in revolt against this provision? It has been the history of this country during the last hundred years gradually to take more and more control in this House of the drink trade. Gradually, year after year, decade after decade, we have imposed more and more restrictions on public houses on the kind of public houses, what they sell, when they sell, and how they sell. This Bill is doing the equivalent in England of extending the hours of every public house in the country. It is doing exactly that. And it is doing more than that—it is increasing the number of pubs in the country. This Bill will be known throughout Nonconformist circles as the "Civic Pubs Bill." Why have all these restrictions been accumulated throughout the years? Because we have been persuaded that unless we control the sale of liquor, great harm is done to the people. I observed that the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), and other hon. Members opposite, have said, "Why should not the British working man take his wife and family out

with him to the pubs at night?"—to these grandiose, beautifully furnished, civic pubs?

Mr. John Lewis (Bolton): Before the hon. Member leaves that point, in view of the fact that only a certain quantity of drink is available at the present time, surely the effect would not be to increase the amount of drink but to spread it over a greater number of places?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Labour Party is going to be in for 20 years, and the depression is going to be as bad as it is now, he is quite right—if that is to be our misfortune for 20 years. The country and the world hope that very quickly we shall be in better times under a better Government.
I was trying to deal with the fundamental issues of this Bill. Why are we opposed to the extension of the provision of drink to civic restaurants? I want to address myself to the case of hon. Members opposite who ask, "Why should the British working man and his wife and children be prevented from going into these places and having a drink?" If hon. Members opposite had urged the production of better houses—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are now dealing with the Civic Restaurants Bill, and not with the production of better houses.

Mr. Stewart: Either we stand for the sanctity and development of the British home as a centre of British life, or we do not. The moral issue dividing that side of. the House from this is simply this: We stand for the sanctity of the home to the greatest possible extent. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh at that; but that helps me. That is what we stand for. What hon. Members opposite apparently stand for, according to their statements tonight—with one or two gallant exceptions—is something quite different. That people should go out at night—a man and his wife and children should go into pubs., civic, private enterprise, or otherwise. That is a disastrous outlook for our country. If that is the issue, then let the people of Great Britain face the fact, that hon. Members opposite stand for British families going into pubs, at night. I do not.

Major Poole: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? I hope that he will give a simple answer. If this


is a great moral issue, would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to support in this House complete prohibition of the drink trade in this country?

Mr. Stewart: I would not mind personally.

Major Poole: But would the hon. Men-her support it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Prohibition is not the matter under discussion.

Mr. Stewart: Regulating the drink trade is one thing; prohibition is a very different thing, and I will leave it at that. I have pointed out the dividing line between the two sides of the House. It was said by the Minister of Food, in a very slippery speech, which became more and more slippery as it proceeded, that the reason that this provision in the Bill could not be applied to Scotland was because of the Scottish legal system. I do not want to be rude, but that approach is very near to political dishonesty. There is not a scrap of evidence for it. In Scotland we have a system of sheriffs, and we could have handed over to the sheriffs the duty of the licensing authority. Therefore, that is all humbug. The Scottish Secretary withdrew and Scottish Labour Members withdrew because they were afraid of the temperance vote and the Co-operative vote.
We are to have splendid, beautiful, well-designed places as the civic pubs of the future; but if they are anything like the present British Restaurants, I am sorry for the working class. Every local authority in England, dominated by a Labour majority, will see that there is a civic pub in the town, and drive its people into that civic pub by encouraging them to go there. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is suggested that they should go, then why not drive. them—subsidise, them, persuade them, produce publicity, make it much cheaper, and do everything to encourage the working man and his wife and children to sit drinking beer at night. I wonder if hon. Members will pause and think for a moment what it is they want in their own family lives. I speak personally—and I fancy that in this I represent the views of Members in all parts of the House—when I ask what is it that I, with my wife and family, like to do in the evenings? I like to be at home with them, and if we get a little tired of each other's company I like to

invite friends to my home. Sometimes I like to be invited to other people's homes along with my family. That is the simple domestic life at which I aim and which I enjoy, and I do not believe the working class of this country want anything different.

Mr. Montague (Islington, West): Who is stopping the hon. Gentleman enjoying it? [Laughter.]

Mr. Stewart: I do not know why hon. Members laugh at these matters, or is it that they are laughing because they are simple issues? I cannot believe it possible that the British working man—and I am not altogether unacquainted with him and his habits—shares the same view as the hon. Member for Cannock, that he does not like his home and that he prefers to go out in the evening to the local pub and there meet his friends. I believe that the average working man prefers to be at home with his family and I believe that this Bill undermines that aim. For that reason, in my opinion, it is immoral and I am ashamed to find that when this issue was raised on the Report stage only seven Scottish Labour Members had the courage to vote, and all of them voted for drink. If the Scottish Members were persuaded of the high morality of not having this provision applied to Scotland why should they funk the issue when it comes to applying the same principle to England? Are they going to funk the issue tonight? I challenge the Scottish Labour Members to stand up to their principles and vote against this Measure. If they do not they are frauds and humbugs.

Mr. Montague: I would not have risen to take part in the Third Reading Debate but for the references made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) to what I had said on the Report stage. I thought that the question of the licences which might be applied for had been thoroughly discussed and really settled on the Report stage, but I have been quoted by the hon. Member for Chorley as saying that I had come to disagree with the idea of Labour clubs. That was an incidental remark in my speech, and I say now on that particular point, that I object to them, because running clubs is not their business as a political organisation, and does injury to that organisation whether


it be of the Labour Party or any other party. I want, at this moment, to give my reasons for that. It is not a question of the morality of drinking. It is the fact that a club—and there are plenty of them in Scotland as well as in Wales—becomes affiliated with the Union of Institutes and Clubs—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question of clubs does not arise as it is not in the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Member is out of Order.

Mr. Montague: The matter was referred to in a speech of mine and has been quoted here tonight. I wanted to make it perfectly clear why I made the remarks I did. However, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I do not want to infringe the Rules of the House. There is not much else I wish to say because I spoke on the Report stage when this drink issue was under discussion. But some other things have been said in the course of this Debate on which I should like to comment briefly. First, I deny the right of people who have all the facilities they want in their clubs and their restaurants, and who, as well, can use the facilities of this House, to tell the working classes what kind of life they have got to live. If these hon. Members are concerned so much with the morality of the working classes, my retort to them is: Let them look after their own morality, which will give them quite enough to do. It irritates me to hear people, who I know are not teetotallers, and who are members of clubs and have all the drinking facilities that they need, talk about the working classes as if they had to be pampered and wrapped in cotton wool, and could not he trusted to see a glass of beer on a table with a meal. It is nonsense to talk like that about the working and I resent it.

Sir W. Darling: There is nothing about the working classes in this Bill.

Mr. Montague: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) is not Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I am out of Order—

Sir W. Darling: I am not suggesting the hon. Member is out of Order.—

Mr. Montague: —I am prepared to give way to the officer of the House who is responsible for seeing that the Debates are

properly conducted, but I do not think I am out of Order in what I am saying. We have not to go very far from this House to find, for instance, Lyons Corner House, which is at the top of Whitehall. It is crowded day and night by people, not all of the working classes in the crude sense of that phrase, which is the labouring classes—but the general workers, such as those from the lower middle class. These people all use Lyons Corner House day and night, and beer can be obtained there. We find the children sitting round the table with their parents, and we all know that families go there to eat and drink. I have not seen any excessive drinking or bestiality such as hon. Members opposite have been talking about. One hon. Member talked tonight about home life and he seemed very concerned about the home life of the working classes. We have been working for decent home lives for the working classes for years.

Vice Admiral Taylor: The hon. Member mentioned Lyons Corner House. Have they got an off-licence or do they only provide drinks with the meals they serve?

Mr. Montague: I see. The objection of the hon. and gallant Member is to an off-licence

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I only asked the hon. Member a question.

Mr. Montague: This continual interruption of business is being abused, and I must ask to be allowed to develop my argument. I am not discussing the merits of an off-licence versus an ordinary licence. What irritates me is this reflection upon the class to which I belong.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Nonsense.

Mr. Montague: It is not nonsense for hon. Members opposite who would be the first to object if their own personal habits of life were interfered with. They talk about supporting the morals of the working class of this country. So far as that is concerned, the working class should be left alone. One hon. Member in the course of this Debate referred to the Continental method. I know the Continent a little bit, and I know what the Continental system is. I have seen in the beer-gardens of Switzerland, Germany and Austria the kind of thing which,


frankly, I should like to see in this country. One great moralist, in the person of William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, said on one occasion—and he said it in my hearing in the old Exeter Hall in the Strand—that if the drink system of this country were the same as it was in Germany, then he would have very little objection to it. In these beer-gardens there are foaming tankards of beer, stein and all the rest of it, and there one sees families enjoying themselves in a way that the people of this country do not know how to.
Really, one does not see this tremendous demoralisation because people get together away from their homes on occasions—and of course they want to be away sometimes. I want to take my wife—and I should want to take my children if they were younger—where we can have decency and comfort and where I can also have the glass of beer I want. It does not demoralise me. What a lot of nonsense it is to talk about demoralisation, especially when it comes from hon. Members who take their own families to restaurants in the West End constantly. It reminds me of the young fellow in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera "Patience" who—
… lostered a passion for alcohol. The consequence was he was lost to-tally, And married a girl from the corps-de ballet.'
That is the attitude of mind that if you drink a glass of beer you will go to perdition. As I have said before, I do object to the abuse of alcoholic liquor and to the grossness of some of the pubs, but I do not see why one should insult municipalities like Bournemouth where there are perfectly respectable civic restaurants. I have been there frequently. I have attended symphony concerts by the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra and have then gone to the civic restaurant for a meal, and drinks have been supplied. Families go there after bathing and taking other forms of enjoyment in the city.
There is no bestiality in such circumstances. The bestiality exists in the slums. I represent a constituency a great part of which consists of sums. They would not like to be called slums, but in fact, the standard of housing has been that of slums ever since I have been connected with the area.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The question of slums does not come

within the terms of a Bill to establish civic restaurants.

Mr. Montague: I will not run the risk of being out of Order again, but on the Report stage the subject was thoroughly discussed and today all kinds of extraneous questions have been introduced which really should have been answered by those who do not happen to be people who are fanatical with regard to teetotalism. I am not fanatical about it and I think that people should have the right to drink if they so desire. I do not want to extend drinking facilities but I do want to extend facilities for reasonable refreshment for the working class as much as for any other class. I object to one class being singled out on moral issues and insulted by the suggestion that if, through their municipal activities, they provide civic centres of refreshment for themselves they are going to fall down into a hell of drinking and squalor in consequence. It simply is not true, and it is not even true of public houses where they have—as some of them have in London—actually increased the amenities. They have done this in my own constituency by the very improvements they have carried out. Let us see that the people get justice, decent housing and decent conditions of life. Then we can leave the moral issue to take care of itself.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) succeeded in stirring himself to a considerable degree of heat over arguments which he was pleased, erroneously, to attribute to this bench and to my hon. Friends behind me. I have listened to practically the whole of the long Debates on the Second Reading, upstairs, on the Report stage down here, and now on Third Reading, and I have not yet heard anyone belonging to my party opposing any of these proposals on the ground that they were demoralising to what the hon. Gentleman was pleased to call the class to which he belonged. It had better be made perfectly clear that the objection which we have to the change made down here after what we had done upstairs is on the ground that it offended a very large number of people in the country I do not say whether they were right or wrong, but the fact remains that it does offend a large section of the people and


since we are a democratic body representing democracy on broad grounds of policy we felt that it was not worth while offending the consciences of people who, whether or not we agree with them, are perfectly honestly opposed to what must and can only be for the benefit—if we assume it is a benefit—of a very small number.
Those were the only reasons for which we objected. The hon. Member for West Islington said that he objected to people who like their glass of beer or wine, and who can afford to belong to a club and to go out to restaurants, inflicting these restrictions on people—to use his own words—"inflicting these irritating restrictions on the class to which I belong." It is not we who are doing that; it is his own people. Is he going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food does not like a glass of beer or wine? He has heard him say here in this House that taking a glass with meals was a good thing and ought to be encouraged. But it is the right hon. Gentleman himself who is inflicting these irritating restrictions on the class to which he belongs in Scotland—not we. The right hon. Gentleman had better remember—and the hon. Lady, too, for that matter. It is they who have imposed these restrictions on Scotland in order to enable the hon. Member and the people who think like him in his own party not to suffer those restrictions in Engand. It is humbug.
As I said just now, we have had a long discussion on this Bill. It is a Measure which at first sight appeared to be comparatively innocent, but as we have delved more and more into its implications we have found that far from being an innocent little Bill to enable local authorities to maintain British restaurants that were started during the war it is—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend today—a deliberate and, I am afraid, successful attempt to extend municipal trading to a very wide field. Incidentally, it has also become a Measure that had better be called "The Civic Pubs Bill" rather than the Civic Restaurants Bill. In the course of his Second Reading speech the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food said he was anxious to see claimed for British restaurants no more than a fair field and no favour. He and his Parliamentary Secretary have signally failed

during the course of the discussion upstairs and on the Floor of the House to carry that claim into effect.
No concessions have been made to the cogent points we put forward. An hon. Member this afternoon asked why we did not trust local authorities considering that their accounts were subject to public audit. We have no objection to a public auditor and we realise that accounts may be subject to public audit. What we object to is the form of the accounts and the fact that there is no statutory rule laid down that in respect of these civic restaurants local authorities are to provide proper sums for rates and rent. The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend the Minister, in course of the Debate upstairs, said, "Oh, but the Minister will lay down satisfactory rules for these accounts."
If he is going to lay down satisfactory rules, we cannot see why they should not be included in the Bill, and the fact that he refuses to include a specific provision in the Bill makes us doubt the good faith with which he made the promise. We had a long discussion and tried to get additional safeguards inserted regarding the power of local authorities to acquire not only sites but the buildings on the sites under Clause 3, and we quoted the example of Coventry, merely as an illustration of the way in which local authorities, given their head under the existing legislation, were behaving. The Parliamentary Secretary, with the permission of the Chairman in Committee, quoted some information she had received from the Clerk to the Coventry town council. I told her a day or two ago that, according to my knowledge, that information was incorrect. She appears to have made some inquiries of the Town Clerk of Coventry, and gave us today a revised version of the information. That information is equally wrong.
I do not want to go into it at great length, but merely as an illustration of the sort of thing that happens—and the sort of thing we were anxious to prevent happening—under the Bill During the discussion on Clause 3, it was distinctly stated that this particular town council had offered an alternative site to the owners of the cafe which had been requisitioned. Powers of requisition are extended and perpetuated in this Bill. I call your attention to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to show that this is in Order. in fact, it was not


so. The town clerk had completely misinformed the hon. Lady The owners have not been offered an alternative site. The council have merely acknowledged a letter received from the owners asking for an alternative site The hon. Lady said that the town clerk had under consideration the opening of the Pool Meadow Café as a civic restaurant. She went further and said that the town clerk had denied any knowledge of a café called Barracks Market Café. I have an advertisement issued by the City of Coventry in the Press. It states:
… City of Coventry British Restaurants. Pool Meadow Café. The Pool Meadow Café is now open …
The hon. Lady made her statement on the basis of information—I am not blaming her—received from the town clerk on 6th February, saying that the opening of a civic restaurant was being considered. Yet here is an advertisement of the City of Coventry dated 11th January saying that the Pool Meadow Café is open. Frankly, in all my long experience I have never heard of a responsible official of a municipality misleading a Member of the Government in such a way. He also said he knew nothing about Barracks Café, and yet on 3rst January, a week before the hon. Lady, in perfect good faith, quoted the statement, here is a report by the Civic Restaurants Superintendent of Coventry—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into all those details on this matter. He has given ample illustrations. He cannot go into details about such matters at this stage. He must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Hudson: I quite appreciate that, and am not trying to get round it, but the hon. Lady mentioned this matter, and I want to illustrate the fact that we are depriving people of a very definite safeguard. May I read just one more quotation in order to finish off? Here is what the Superintendent said on 31st January:
The first two months of operation of the Barracks Market and Pool Meadow Cafés under the British Restaurants Committee of the City Council have shown particularly satisfactory trading result … so good that the Barracks Cafe will open on Thursday afternoon.
I am sorry for the hon. Lady. It is a fantastic situation in which a town clerk deliberately misleads not only her but, through her, the House.

I now turn to the question of drink. Everyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) must agree that it was not only a witty but a very cogent speech. He exposed the inconsistency of the attitude taken up by the Minister of Food. Let me repeat that the party opposite and the Government cannot expect always or even ever, to have it both ways. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister on the Report stage defended the exclusion of Scotland on the grounds that the law was so different in Scotland that one could not really assimilate the two, but in the course of the proceedings upstairs he said exactly the opposite. He said that the Bill as then drafted could apply to Scotland. It is perfectly clear, as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said, that the change as far as Scotland is concerned was the result of a deal done inside the Labour Party in order to buy off the opposition of the Scottish hon. Members.

Mr. Walker: Fantastic.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member for East Fife described the Government's excuses as humbug I say their action was gross political dishonesty. If not that, the Minister of Food was guilty of the grossest incompetence upstairs. As for other hon. Members, I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), my namesake, has compromised with his conscience—

Mr. Gallacher: It is an easier one than the right hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Hudson: He has said that the Bill contains a bad blemish, but he is apparently to vote for it. I will leave him to deal with his own conscience. However, that does not excuse the action of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. I am glad to see three of them sitting there—the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Air and the Secretary of State for War. In the course of the election those right hon. Gentlemen, together with a number of others, were specifically asked, "Will you insist that no sale or supply of intoxicants should be allowed in publicly-provided community centres?" All three of them, in accordance with our records, answered, "Yes." The Minister of Food, in winding up on the Report stage, tried to save them by accusing the hon. Member for


West Ealing of what he called a "dialectical leap." I have not heard the expression before, but the Minister said that he had made a dialectical leap to identify community centres with civic restaurants. We have heard a good deal tonight to prove that there was no leap about it. It was a hyphen, if anything. It is quite clear that hon. Members on the Government side believe that civic restaurants should form an essential part of community centres, and they have voted in favour of turning civic restaurants into pubs, and therefore clearly they believe that there is nothing wrong in having civic pubs in the middle of community centres.
Among the Members of the Government who answered, "Yes," to that question were the Home Secretary, the Minister of Defence, the Solicitor-General, the Secretary of State, the new Minister of Education, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for War and the Chief Whip—

An Hon. Member: What did the right hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Hudson: I did not reply.

Dr. Morgan: Was that a "dialectical leap"?

Mr. Hudson: I never sign these questionaires at Election tame. I have some regard for a pledge when I make one, but pledges are regarded as ten a penny by the Government. They may have signed the pledge, but they have certainly repudiated it. They are backsliders.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): If the right hon. Gentleman is alluding to me, for one, I stand by the pledge that I gave. I was concerned with this matter when I was at the Board of Education in the Coalition Government, where a paper was prepared on which a great Debate took place as to whether drink should or should not be admitted to community centres, which are quite well defined institutions. A civic restaurant is not a community centre.

Mr. Hudson: That, no doubt, at the time of the Coalition, was the case, but the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues I have mentioned are in is that during the discussion

of this particular Pill—and I realise his difficulty—it has become abundantly clear that the idea behind it goes a great deal further than would appear on the surface, and that in fact the view of a great number of Members of his party—certainly the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food who is in charge of the Bill, and of his Parliamentary Secretary—is that civic restaurants should, be an essential part of community centres.

Mr. Ede: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, I will read it out.

Mr. Ede: rose—

Mr. Hudson: I do not want to delay the House, but I have quotations here. For example, the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who I see in his place and who honoured his signature in the Division Lobby on Monday, said:
I believe that civic restaurants of the future should be developed in association with other civic functions I hope that we shall nave community centres and youth clubs. What could be better than a common building for all these purposes?

Mr. Ede: rose—

Mr. Hudson: May I continue reading? It goes on:
Why not a big hall in which the midday meal is served, which can be used in the evening for dances or meetings of various sorts…
Hon. Members should note that this Bill does not limit the serving of drinks to meals. That is an arguable point. This Bill will enable civic restaurants to serve drink just like a bar. It goes on:
and why cannot there be smaller rooms in the same building used for serving snacks? I think that in the future the civic restaurant will have a very important part to play in the life Of this Country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November. 1946; Vol. 43o, c. 1870 and 1871]
So that is quite clear—

Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I point nut to the right hon. Gentleman—it is obvious to the House—that I was speaking for myself, giving my own views, and in no sense committing anybody else?

Mr. Hudson: Quite so, I am not denying it.

Mr. Ede: I thought from the way the right hon. Gentleman led up to this


quotation, that he was going to produce a quotation from the Minister of Food accepting the view of my hon. Friend. May I point out that a community centre is organised under the Ministry of Education, and is not in any way at the moment connected with the civic restaurant or the actual committee of the local authority which organises the civic restaurant?

Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary ought to know me well enough—we have been in the House together on the same side and on opposite sides long enough—to know that I would not say that unless I could produce evidence. The hon. Lady sitting beside him will confirm that, when in the Committee upstairs we were discussing this Amendment on the fourth day of the proceedings, she said:
I would remind the Committee that many local authorities are very anxious to have civic restaurants as part of their community centres."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 28th January, 1947, c. 166.]
In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I honestly do not think, when he started these things, that he realised the wide extension which the Minister of Food and various people are giving them, but, believe me, the impression left on the House—certainly the impression left on this side of the House and generally—is that it is the desire and intention of a large number of hon. Members on that side, including Members of the Government, to see that civic restaurants form an essential part of community centres.

Mr. Ede: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hudson: It is, really. If the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour in another place to see that some words are inserted limiting this, and making quite sure that drink is not sold in what he calls community centres, that is a very different matter. After all, we are dealing with the Third Reading of a Bill, not printed, but as it should have been printed, and he should take it from me that I have been following this now for a very long time. The intention of his supporters is to make civic restaurants part of community centres. It is, therefore, I claim, perfectly fair to argue—indeed the hon. Member for West Ealing was, the person who first brought these pledges and promises by his right hon. leaders to my attention, and I have checked them up. It is quite clear that whether they realized

what they were signing at the time or not, in fact they pledged themselves to resist the serving of drink in community centres and by their vote on Monday, whether they realise it or not, they have, as far as England and Wales are concerned, definitely told local authorities they can serve. drink in civic restaurants in community centres.

Mr. Ede: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hudson: We still believe that the decision is wrong on the ground that it will offend the vast number of people with consciences who believe that the serving of drink under such circumstances is morally wrong. I am not saying whether I do or not. All I am saying is that there are large numbers of people who do—hundreds of thousands, probably millions in this country. We think it wrong, on an occasion like this, to offend such a vast number of people who honestly hold that belief. Because we believe that, and because we are opposed to this wide extension of municipal trading, we propose to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

7.38 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: As I have already spoken, I must ask leave of the House to speak again. I shall not take many minutes because I feel that there has been a great deal of repetition tonight. The same arguments have been advanced as on the Second Reading, the Committee stage, and the Report stage, very often by the same people, but there are one or two points with which I want to deal. First I am sure the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) will agree with me that we do riot want to do any injustice to the Town Clerk of Coventry. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Town Clerk has deceived me, and that he finds it difficult to understand why I was given the account I received. Surely, he will agree, however, that the Town Clerk had no dishonourable motive. There was no reason at all why he should give me the information he did, and I explained in my opening speech what the right hon. Gentleman has said now, that this matter has no relevance to the Bill. It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, and it was necessary for me to clear tip the matter. In the first place he mentioned, the Geisha Cafe, I have already told him that although his informant said he has not been offered


alternative premises under the Town and Country Planning Act, he will have that offer made to him, so I really think that for the right hon. Gentleman to make a debating point out of that is entirely unfair.

Sir P. Macdonald: Was he offered compensation for loss of goodwill which goes with the site?

Dr. Summerskill: That matter will be decided by the local authority. The other two factors which the right hon. Member mentioned have nothing to do with compulsory powers which we discussed under the Clause. There is no reason why the Town Clerk should tell me about the domestic affairs of Coventry City Council. He was specifically asked to give information concerning catering establishments situated in the area being compulsorily acquired. I hope that as a result of this Debate the Town Clerk of Coventry will not suffer in any way, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman feels the same in this matter.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not know. It is really disgraceful. I am not a city councillor, but it is disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to pursue that matter further.

Dr. Summerskill: It has been suggested that we will give local authorities the opportunity of juggling—I do not think "juggling" is too strong a term—with the accounts of civic restaurants. I assure the House that the form of accounts which my right hon. Friend will prescribe will be such as to contain all the items concerned with a catering establishment. I think it was the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) who asked whether a civic restaurant would pay an economic rent. What they will pay is a rent based on the current letting value, and that will be prescribed in the form of accounts.
Once more in this Debate hon. Members representing seaside resorts have presented a united front, and have advanced the same arguments as before. I want to say a word to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald), because he gave a moving description of the struggles of the landlady during the winter waiting for the coming of the summer season. I understood he. said it was a struggle for

these landladies to pay the rates in the long period before the season.

Sir P. Macdonald: I implied that.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, the hon. Member implied that. I want to put another point to hon. Members representing seaside resorts. I understand that these landladies feel very strongly about what is known as the "one day tripper," who comes in with his food for the day, and leaves without spending money in the town. These civic restaurants will not necessarily be subsidised by the rates. They may reduce the rates in the seaside town, because the day tripper will go to the civic restaurant to have a cheap meal, and so reduce the rates paid by the landladies.

Sir P. Macdonald: I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. The objection is that the day trippers come to the Isle of Wight, and other seaside resorts, and take their meals out of the limited rations which are allowed to that area by the hon. Lady's Department. That is what they object to. They would not mind if the trippers brought their own food.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension on the question of rations. He said that the civic restaurants would take the rations which would otherwise be allocated to private catering establishments. That is not so. A civic restaurant will have rations allocated to it, and there is no question of taking rations from the other restaurants.

Sir P. Macdonald: What about consumer need?

Dr. Summerskill: We had a Debate once before in which the hon. Member raised this point. If he will come to my room I shall be glad to explain to him the rationing scheme which we administer. I think the House will agree that the most delightful and original speech this evening came from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). But, by the end of it, I was left wondering whether she would have a glass of beer, or a cup of tea, in the civic restaurants.

Miss Lee: Both.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady drew a picture which was in striking contrast


to the ugly picture drawn by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). I have been in this House for some years, and I think the speech he made tonight was the ugliest speech he has ever made. He did everything possible to prejudice the people of this country against British Restaurants, whereas the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock drew a gracious picture of a colourful restaurant, well-designed, attractive, and inviting. In fact it was such as I have described as a housewives' club. That was in contrast to the ugly picture of the hon. Member for East Fife.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What was the picture?

Dr. Summerskill: I am not going to use the term the hon. Member used, because I find it so offensive that I try to repress it in describing civic restaurants of the future. He gave a delightful picture of his own domestic life, how he loved to sit at home with his wife and children, and to invite visitors in.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is another domestic detail in which I hope the hon. Lady will not indulge.

Dr. Summerskill: If you will allow me to pursue it for a minute, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sure the House will find that it is relevant. It is entirely relevant to my argument. I want to explain that whereas the hon. Member for East Fife is able to lead that life, and is very fortunate in so doing, there are many millions who cannot.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I want them to be able to do so.

Dr. Summerskill: We are anxious to provide these restaurants, in order that people who live in overcrowded and ugly surroundings should have an opportunity of enjoying an amenity they have never

had before. There is nothing immoral in a working-class family going to a civic restaurant. There is nothing wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said, for them to enjoy the kind of social life which hon. Members opposite enjoy. The right hon. Member for Southport mentioned the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Flint."] —no, I think I am right, the hon. Member for Stone. It was a most unusual speech for these days. His theme was that civic restaurants might tempt the housewife from the home where she should be ministering to the tired warrior. The hon. Member also asked me whether these restaurants would be needed after the emergency. He is a little young, and perhaps, has forgotten that between the two wars 50 per cent. of the people of this country were under-nourished. There will be a need for these restaurants for many years to come. I view these restaurants in a way which is entirely different from the approach of the hon. Member for East Fife. For 20 years I prescribed bottles of medicine, when I should have been prescribing food for undernourished people. I do not overstate the case when I say that this contribution to the services of the local authority is as important as any of the services which we have supplied for the prevention of disease. I look forward to the day when we shall have a well-nourished community—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Although they have had a long lease of life in this House, hon. Members opposite have never managed to establish that. The day will come, and when it comes, this Bill will have made a big contribution.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 116.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge)


Adams, W.T (Hammesmith, South)
Belcher,. J. W.
Braddock. T. (Mitcham)


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bramall, Major E. A.


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Benson, G.
Brook, D (Halifax)


Anderson, H. C
Berry, H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rathwell)


Attewell, H. C.
Beswick, F.
Brown, George (Belper)


Austin, H. Lewis
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Awbery, S.S.
Binns, J.
Bruce, Maj D. W. T.


Ayles, W. H.
Blackburn, A. R.
Buchanan G.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Blenkinsop, A.
Burke, W. A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Blyton, W. R.
Butler, H, W (hackney, S.)


Balfour, A.
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, James


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr.H. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Barstow, P. G.
Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)
Champion, A. J.




Chater, D.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarveashire)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cobb, F. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Collick, P.
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


Collins, V. J.
Key, C W.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sharp, Granville


Cook, T. F.
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Kirby, B. V.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cunningham, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Daines, P.
Levy, B. W
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, Edward (Burslam)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lipson, D. L.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Longden, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Davies, S O. (Merthyr)
McAllister, G
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Deer, G.
Mack, J. D
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsand)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Diamond, J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Donovan, T.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stamford, W


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Steele, T.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dye, S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stubbs, A. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marquand, H. A.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edelman, M.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Swingler, S.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mathers, G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Medland, H. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Messer, F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Ewart, R.
Mikardo, Ian.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Fairhurst, F.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Follick, M.
Montague, F.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Foot, M. M.
Moody, A. S.
Thurtle, E.


Forman, J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tiffany, S.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Timmons, J.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mort, D. L.
Titterington, M. F.


Gaitskell, H T. N.
Moyle, A.
Tolley, L.


Gallacher, W.
Mulvey, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Murray, J. D.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gibbins, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Gooch, E. G.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Walker, G. H.


Goodrich, H. E.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Noel Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstew, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Warbey, W. N.


Grierson, E.
O'Brien, T.
Watson, W. M.


Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.
Weitzman, D.


Gunter, R. J.
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Orbach, M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T.
West, D. G.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col, R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parkin, B. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wigg, Cal. G. E.


Harrison, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wilkes, L.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Piratin, P.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Herbison, Miss M.
Platte-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Holman, P.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


House, G.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hoy, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willis, E.


Hubbard, T.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Woodburn, A.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pritt, D. N.
Wyatt, W.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, V. F.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Irving, W. J.
Randall, H. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rees-Williams, D. R.



Janner, B
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Mr. Collindridge and


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Coldrick.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.





NOES


Aitken, Hon, Max
Beechman, N. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Birch, Nigel
Buchan-Hepbur, P. G. T


Aster, Hon. M.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Bullock, Capt, M


Baldwin. A. E.
Bossom. A. C.
Byers, Frank







Challen, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kendall, W. D.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Scott, Lord W.
 
Digby, S. W.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Drayson, G. B.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Snadden, W. M.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Spence, H. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)
MacLeod, J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Gage, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Gammons, L. D.
Morales, A. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Grant, Lady
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Teeling, William


Granville, E. (Eye)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)


Gridley, Sir A.
Maude, J. C.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Grimston, R V.
Medlicott, F.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A. H. E.
Ward, Hon, G. R.


Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris, Napkin (Carmarthen)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morris-Jones, Sit H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hinchinghrooke, Viscount
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H



Jarvis, Sir J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Pitman, I. J.
Commander Agnew and




Major Constar.


Resolution agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLISH RESETTLEMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for 1he application of the Royal Warrant as to pensions, etc., for the military forces to certain Polish forces, to enable the Assistance Board to meet the needs of, and to provide accommodation in camps or other establishments for, certain Poles and others associated with Polish forces, to provide for their requirements as respects health an educational services, and to provide for making arrangements and meeting expenses in connection with their emigration, it is expedient—
(A) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) payments under any scheme for applying the said Royal Warrant, with effect from such date before or after the passing of the said Act as may be specified in the scheme, in relation to the disablement or death of members of the Polish Naval detachment mentioned in the agreement made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Poland on the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the Polish armed forces organised and employed under British command in pursuance of the agreement made as aforesaid on the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty, or the Polish resettlement forces;
(ii) payments under any provision made by such a scheme for continuing, for not more than one year from the coming into opera-

tion of that provision, payments being them made in respect of disablement or death of members of other Polish forces;
(iii) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Section six of the. Determination of Needs Act, Too, attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session for—

(a) the grant of allowances by the Assistance Board to Poles in the United Kingdom in consequence of war circumstances, and the application for the purposes of the grant of such allowances of any provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, or of rules and regulations thereunder;
(b) the provision by or on behalf of the Assistance Board for such Poles of accommodation in camps, hostels or other establishments, or the making by or on behalf of the said Board of provision for meeting the needs, and promoting the welfare, of persons for whom the accommodation is provided;

and any increase so attributable in the sums payable out of such moneys under section forty-seven of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934 (which relates to salaries and allowances of staff of the Assistance Board and of appeal tribunals and expenses of Government departments);
(iv) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State, or by the Minister of Education or the Secretary of State, in the making by him or on his behalf of provision for meeting respectively needs as to mental or bodily health, and educational needs, of such Poles;
(v) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour and National Service in making


arrangements and providing facilities in connection with the emigration of such Poles;

(B) To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Assistance Board under the said Act of the present Session by way of payments from such Poles, or from persons under obligation to maintain them, for accommodation, allowances or other benefits provided for them under the said Act or otherwise in respect of their maintenance, or received by the Board under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, by virtue of any application of provisions of that Act by the said Act of the present Session.
In this Resolution references to Poles in the United Kingdom in consequence of war circumstances include references to persons in the United Kingdom being members or former members of forces mentioned in paragraph (A (i) of this Resolution, and to persons in the United Kingdom specified in the said Act of the present Session by reference to their relationship to or dependence on any such Poles, members or former members, or to or on any body of Polish forces entering the United Kingdom.

Orders of the Day — POLISH RESETTLEMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Power to apply Royal Warrant as to pensions, etc., to certain Polish forces.)

8 p.m.

Major Dramall: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "death", to insert:
while serving under British command.
This Amendment puts into more exact terms what I think the Minister had in mind in this first Clause. There will be little doubt, at any rate on this side of the House, that we do not wish, in making these perfectly right provisions for the payment of pensions to Polish forces—to meet, as has been said on all sides of the House, the debt which we owe to very gallant and valuable Allies—to make provision for those who sustained their disablement or wounds while fighting against this country and its Allies. A certain amount of reference was made to this point in the Debate on the Second Reading, and it was rather surprising to hear certain hon. Members opposite going to some pains to deal with this point and to suggest that no exception should be taken to paying pensions to these people. If I misunderstood the hon. Members, I

must apologise. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor), for instance, dealt at some length with those people who had been fighting on the side of the Germans. He said, quite correctly, that they had been pressed into it, or that many of them had been pressed into it. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was also at some pains to defend those who had found themselves forced to fight on the side of the Germans. Few hon. Members on this side of the House would deny that they had been forced into that position, but there were many people in Germany itself, and in occupied parts of Europe, who did not allow themselves to be so forced—but that is by the way.
The point I want to make, and my only point in this connection, is that no one is proposing in this Amendment to place any stigma upon those people. We are not saying that we will not have them in this country, we are not saying that we are going to punish them; we are merely saying that we are not going to pay them pensions, and that I should have thought was something so reasonable that it did not need discussing. If there had not been a certain number of comments from the other side, suggesting that one should not make any differentiation between those who had fought on the Allied side and those who had fought on the German side, it would not have been necessary to comment on it. I feel that by putting this into words, by saying that the pensions to be paid should be paid to those who suffered disablement or death, as the case may be, while fighting under British command, we are strengthening this Clause.
There are two other small points. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in summing up on the Second Reading, said that the point was already covered by paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1). It does not, in fact, cover the point. That paragraph deals with the type of people to whom a pension should be paid, and deals only with those people who were in the Polish armed forces kept under the agreement of 1940. It does not deal at all with the people who come under paragraph (c), namely, those people who have not been in those Polish armed forces but have since come into the Polish Resettlement Corps. It does not deal with the purposes for which these pensions are to be paid. The beginning of the Clause


deals with the purposes for which they are to be paid, and that is the reason why the Amendment is being put in this place.
The other point is the difference between this Amendment and the following Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I think it is more suitable that it should be "under British command" rather than "British or Allied command," in view of the fact that there may be some doubt. There may be people who claim that they have fought under Allied command; for instance, some of the Poles who came with General Anders' Army out of Russia might say that they fought with the Russians before they came out, and there would be no means of checking that up. I think this narrows it down and makes it safer, thus ensuring that there will be fewer debatable cases.

Mr. H. Hynd: As the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall) has said, we feel that this Amendment puts the intention of the Government into words. During the Second Reading Debate I was rather alarmed by an interjection made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) when I drew attention to the words as they now stand in the Bill, and suggested that they might have the effect of paying pensions to men who were wounded, or to dependants of men who were killed, while fighting in the German Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman interjected:
Much against their will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, r2th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 416.]
But later on, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was replying for the Government, he made it quite clear, when I asked whether the Bill provided a pension for the man who was wounded in the. Germany Army:
The answer is: No … it is not intended to give pensions to men who were wounded otherwise than under British Command.
Later on, he said:
We ate not going to give pensions to men who were wounded fighting against us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 474–475.)
That, I suggest, is a categorical assurance which must he embodied in the Bill, and we suggest that the wording of the

Amendment now before the Committee carries out that assurance in plain terms, and will make the Bill acceptable, I should say, to the vast majority of hon. Members.

Professor Savory: This Amendment is far too restrictive. It would exclude those very gallant Poles who, when the German Army invaded Poland, resisted with a heroism to which every one of us, I am sure, will pay tribute. A good many soldiers were wounded in that campaign, and they afterwards joined the British Forces. They came through Russia into Persia, and from Persia to the Middle East, and joined up at Tobruk with the Carpathian Brigade of General Kopanski. They fought all through the Italian campaign, and I think it would be wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under British command."] When hon. Members say, "Under British command," are they forgetting those gallant troops who fought in France, men who resisted to the very last even when the French troops surrendered, men who held out in the East of France and in Brittany, and only with extreme reluctance withdrew to this country where they carried on the campaign and fought to the last? Why exclude those gallant men?

Mr. H. Hynd: Were they not fighting under British command?

Professor Savory: No, many of them were fighting under French command. One could hardly say they were fighting under British command at that time. They had joined up in France, the army was formed in France, they were Polish brigades who had fought in France, and I am certain that they were not under British command at that time. They were under French command.

Mr. Piratin (Mile End): As I gather it is not intended to call the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself, I take the opportunity to speak on this Amendment. This Amendment and our Amendment are very similar, but I think the addition of "allied forces" in our Amendment is worth mentioning. While listening to the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), I was rather apprehensive about whether we are on the right track. The hon. Member wants


those Poles who fought in wider spheres than would he covered by the term "British command" to be compensated. I agree with the Amendment, but I would like the Minister to consider whether he would include those men who fought under Allied Command.
I know this suggestion may sound strange coming from me, but if we are to have justice, then let us have full justice. There may be some Poles who fought in the French Army, or under French command, and who are now in this country, who would come within the proposal I make. Hon. Members will recollect that last week I opposed this Bill on Second Reading, but nevertheless, now that we are discussing the Bill in Committee, it is our duty to make constructive remarks. The men who fought in the French Army fought for the Allied cause; they may have been wounded, but not wounded while under British command. There are also cases when such men subsequently came under British command, but were already suffering from wounds incurred while fighting under French command. It is that sort of case which I would like the Minister to consider. Therefore, in addition to the Amendment which was moved so lucidly and briefly, which is a credit in this House, I would like the Minister to consider including men who fought for the Allied cause in the way I have described.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I propose to accept the Amendment in the form moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley (Major Bramall). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said this was the intention of the Government in drafting the Bill. We had intended to incorporate the limitation in the scheme which the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, is empowered to make by this Bill, but it is probably better that it should be specific in the Bill, so that there may be no misunderstanding. I want to make quite clear exactly what the Amendment does. It gives a pension to a man who incurs a disability while serving with the British Forces. There may probably be not a few men who served at one time or other under German command, but who subsequently joined the British forces, and

incurred a disability while serving in the British forces. If the disability was incurred while serving under British command, it will be recognised, even if the man has for some reason or other served in the German forces.
I have been asked to extend this to the forces of our Allies, and I was asked to do this in the name of justice. I think the proper word for that would be "generosity." Anyone who has served in the Army, or has been associated with people who have served in the Army and who have come forward in later years in an attempt to prove that they had a disability which was attributable to their military service, knows the difficulty there is to get that checked. There are British Army records and records of people who served under British command, but it would be impossible to check the claim of a person who said he was suffering from bronchitis or asthma which was the result of service rendered in some force of which this country has no record. We desire to do the right thing and to make clear from the first exactly the limits to which we are prepared to go. I think the words which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley has proposed enable us to define the liability we are willing to accept with exactitude, and I venture to say that it does justice to the people who have a claim on this country.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: I wonder whether the Home Secretary could clear up one point which slightly puzzles me with regard to the Amendment. Under whose command are the Polish Resettlement Forces? Are they under British command?

Mr. Ede: The Polish Resettlement Corps is an unarmed unit of the British Army serving under those responsible for the control of the British Army.

Mr. Paget: I am a little worried whether the Amendment which has been accepted by the Home Secretary fulfils its object. In the case of a man who was wounded while serving under our command, and who subsequently died after he had ceased to be under our command, the words "death while serving under British command" might confine the deaths to deaths occurring while under British command. Would the words cover the case to which I have referred?

Mr. Ede: The intention is to cover that case; that is to say, where the death is attributable to war service.

Mr. Paget: Do the words do that?

Mr. Ede: I am advised that they do, but I have great respect for my hon. Friend's legal knowledge and power to interpret a Clause in a Bill, and therefore, I will have the matter examined between now and Report stage to make quite clear that the words carry out the pledge I have given.

Mr. Paget: I was only raising a doubt.

Major Legge-Bourke: I see the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in dealing with these people, but it appears to me that the acceptance of this Amendment will give rise to considerable inequality inside the Polish Resettlement Corps and among Poles who eventually settle in, and become citizens of, this country. I think there will be disparities, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Report stage, to see whether there is some way in which the people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) could he fitted in so as to enable those who have fought with our Allies, but who have never been British troops, and yet have never fought against us, should be covered.

Mr. Ede: If a Frenchman who fought in the French Army and incurred a disability while so doing comes to this country, we do not pay him a British pension. He is the responsibility of the French Government. If he has a claim to make they, if anybody, have the records by which the claim can be checked. I think that what we are proposing to do is just. A Pole who fought under French command must look, if to anybody, either to the Polish Government or to the French Government for a recognition of the disability which he incurred. I could not undertake to accept liability for the claims that might be made by people who did not fight under our command.

Mr. Gallacher: We want to be quite clear about this matter. We read in the Bill:
The Minister of Pensions may, with the consent of the Treasury, make a scheme for applying, in relation to the disablement or death"—

and the Amendment proposes to add:
while serving under British command.
Subsection (1) has paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) says quite clearly:
The Polish Armed Forces organised and employed under British command.
By the Amendment we shall already have said that they are under British command. The point is that paragraph (b) is on a different matter.

Major Bramall: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is one of some substance, and it will be helpful if the Home Secretary would consider whether the words, "caused while serving under Allied command" might not meet the point better.

Mr. Ede: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for suggesting at this stage an Amendment to his own Amendment. I have already given a pledge that I will look into the matter.

Professor Savory: Does the Home Secretary really mean that as regards Frenchmen, having fought in France with the French Army, having come over here and having been incorporated over here as men to whom we promised naturalisation, who served in the French Forces, he would not take into consideration the war wounds that they received in France while they were still under French command?

Mr. Ede: I cannot think that anybody in Great Britain would expect us to incur such a liability.

Major Legge-Bourke: Surely, it would be only generous that the right hon. Gentleman should do something for those men, if only by way of approaching the French Government, in regarding what he feels the French Government should do?

Mr. Ede: I am not called upon to do that. If I naturalise a Frenchman who subsequently is taken ill as the result of wounds or exposure incurred while he served with the French Army, I do not think he has any claim upon our Minister of Pensions merely because he has become a British citizen. The logic of what I am being asked to do by hon. Gentlemen opposite would impose a


burden upon us which we could not possibly check when we were called upon to assume it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 12 to 24.
Clause 1 confers entitlement to pension under the Royal Warrant upon a considerable number of gallant and deserving Polish citizens who served under British command, and upon certain others. The proviso, however, limits the payment of those pensions to a period of five years, whether it be a case of disablement or of death. The proviso states:
Payments … shall be limited to such as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act or such extended period, if any, as the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, may from time to time by Order specify.
That is to say that each and every one of the Polish soldiers who qualify for pension under Subsection (1) will be in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not his pension is to terminate at the end of five years. So will the widow of a Polish soldier who is in receipt of widow's pension.
The Home Secretary, in his Second Reading speech, spoke as follows, when explaining the Clause:
Clause 1 brings within the scope of the Ministry of Pensions all those Poles who have served in the Forces, and brings them into the pensions scheme on the same terms as Britons who similarly, unfortunately, have to come within the purview of the Ministry of Pensions.
He went on:
For some time this has been the case, and a protocol which was signed in 1943 ensured to the Polish troops that they should have this right. We pay these pensions to the Poles while they are in this country, but these pensions are not paid to Poles who return to Poland. If they return to Poland, quite clearly they then become the responsibility of the Polish Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 379.]
The first point I put to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply is, Did the protocol contain any limitation or qualification to indicate that pensions might be limited in this way? If the protocol did not contain any such limitation or qualification, it is clearly a breach of an agreement and of a pledge given to those

men to limit the duration of the pensions to an initial period of five years. I have been unable to secure a copy of the protocol. I have no doubt that it can be found, and I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench have the protocol with them. I would ask them to give the Committee the precise terms of the undertaking which was given to the Polish Government in London in 1943. The Committee ought to be in a position to judge whether the terms of the Clause, with this limiting proviso, carry out the undertaking entered into in the protocol of 1943.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour came to reply to the criticisms which were made during the Second Reading Debate on this five years' limitation, he was no doubt speaking on instructions and from his brief, but the reasons which he produced for the insertion of the five years' limitation were, in my view, wholly bad. If hon. Members will turn to HANSARD'S report of the Second Reading Debate they will see the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour of this five years' limitation. He said:
I was also asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the pensions, and why they were limited to five years. The short point is that the pensions have been established. They have been established on very inadequate documentation, and there is some doubt as to whether or not, if British medical boards and British methods were applied, these pensions would be as large, or as small, as they are now.
As a reason for limiting the pensions to five years, that is wholly bad.
The Clause confers a new right upon persons who have served in the Polish forces. These pensions will be payable by the Minister of Pensions under the Royal Warrant and every one of these cases can, and will be, reviewed by the Ministry of Pensions as soon as the Clause becomes law.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Will the right hon. Gentleman read the sentences that follow?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I am going to criticise each and every one of the hon. Gentleman's reasons. I am merely pointing out that the first reason is a wholly bad one. I


hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. Do I carry the hon. Gentleman with me so far?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Certainly not.

Mr. Peake: I feel sure I carried the Committee with me in stating that the fact that these pensions may have been granted on medical standards which the Minister of Pensions would challenge, is no reason for placing a five year limitation upon the duration of their payment. Is there any hon. Member in any quarter of the Committee who will defend that as a good reason for a limitation?

Mr. Piratin: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the next sentence he will not defend it himself.

Mr. Peake: I am going to read the next sentence, too. The hon. Gentleman continues:
In order to review this position, and, in the hope that we can get a greater degree of co-operation from the Provisional Government in Poland as well, we decided on a five-year period. We are not without hope that, some day, the Polish Government may take over these liabilities and have these men back in Poland.
And then, a little lower down, after an interruption by myself, the hon. Gentleman went on to say:
What I said was that we did not want to tie ourselves for ever to this liability if there was a chance, through negotiations, of getting the Polish Government to accept the liability.
Does anybody really think that we are more, or less, likely to secure a concession from the present Government of Poland if we are in a position to say to them, "This ought to be your liability. At any rate, to some extent, these poor men are only going to get a pension from us for five years, and therefore, you should be moved by considerations of pity and charity to contribute."

Mr. H. Hynd: It may not be the present Government of Poland.

Mr. Peake: I am speaking of any Government of Poland. Does anybody really think that our hand will be strengthened in an international negotiation because we have, under a domestic Act of Parliament of our own, limited our liability in this way? If anybody thinks that, let them look at the next statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. He immediately went on to say:

I want to assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention, if circumstances remain as they are, of depriving these men if their pensions at the end of five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, cols. 470–475.]
In fact, he was saying if the present, of any future, Government of Poland declined to make any contribution, of course we shall go on paying these pensions. What is the position then when the British Government approach the Polish Government and say, "Please contribute to these pensions. They are only going on for five years"? Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an unqualified assurance to the House of Commons that they would be continued indefinitely if the Polish Government did not contribute. We are getting into a ridiculous position. It is, surely, much better to give these men the pensions to which they are entitled and not to submit them to any degree of uncertainty as to whether these pensions will continue in payment or will be withdrawn.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point, so far as I know. It is very interesting, but what occurs to me is that it is out of Order. If the effects of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is moving is to make pensions payable as of right for a longer period than five years, then the effect of that must be to increase the charge. Surely, that would be out of Order?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is perfectly true that if this Amendment is carried it will increase the charge, but it is within the scope of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I might say that the point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had occurred to me before I moved this Amendment. I do, however, say that it does seem to me to be rather mean and niggardly, considering how great is our obligation to these Polish soldiers, who fought for us throughout the war, and fought with the utmost gallantry, to place in an Act of Parliament a provision that their pensions may be limited to five years.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The right hon. Gentleman, in the


first part of his speech, asked me if I could tell him the terms of the agreement in the Protocol, of which he had tried to obtain a copy and had not been successful. I will read out the two articles concerned, Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 states:
If the disablement on death of a person is the insult of his service as a member of the Polish Armed Forces during the period of the present war he and his dependants shall, subject to Article 5 hereof, be eligible during the present war for the award of pensions and other benefits in respect of his disablement or death similar to those which would be granted under the War Pensions instruments administered by the British Minister of Pensions with reference to members of the military, naval and air forces as therein defined in respect of the disablement or death in the like circumstances as a member of His Majesty's Armed Forces of corresponding rank and on the same conditions as would be applicable under those instruments.
Article 3 states:
Awards under the foregoing provisions of this Protocol shall be the liability of the Government of the Polish Republic, but the Government of the United Kingdom guarantee to provide such funds as may be necessary to enable the Government of the Polish Republic to meet their liability hereunder, until the general suspension of hostilities between the United Kingdom and Poland on the one hand and Germany on the other, and for so long thereafter as may be mutually agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Poland.
That was carried out for a number of years during the war by the Polish representatives in this country, assisted by two people from my Department. When that Government finished, the payments were, and are being, carried on up to the present time by an Interim Treasury Committee, and that is the situation at the moment until we get this Bill.
The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised is the question of the five years. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman a good guarantee that there is no intention of stopping these people's pensions at the end of five years. All that this Clause is seeking to do is to have the ability to reconsider this in five years' time if certain things happen. If the conditions remain the same, then the pensions will go on just the same. There is no desire or intention to do any harm whatever to these people. Let me put it in this way. The acceptance of the obligation to pay pensions to mem-

bers of the Polish armed forces who served under British command will involve a substantial expenditure by the British Government. The sum to be provided in 1947 will be of the order of £600,000, and this expenditure, though on a diminishing scale, would continue for the next 40 or 50 years. When the Pensions Protocol was negotiated in 1943, it was anticipated that, after the war, the liability would no longer fall on this country, and that any pensions would be paid by the Polish Government of the day. At the present time, there is no possibility of this happening, and the British Government are proposing to continue the payment of pensions to those who have deserved pensions unless they return to Poland.
No one can anticipate with accuracy what the future may hold, and the object of those words is to leave the future position open, and to provide that the whole matter shall be reviewed in five years' time in the light of the facts as they then are. If circumstances arise which enable the British taxpayer to be relieved of this obligation, hon. Members will, I think, agree that advantage should be taken of it. I can, however, tell hon. Members that there is no intention of just bringing the scheme to at end at the end of five years. If to do this would mean leaving the Poles or the Polish widows concerned high and dry, then the scheme will be extended, and the British Government will continue payment of the pensions. I suggest to hon. Members that we should be unwise to delete the words because we should thereby tie the hands of the Government of the day and possibly prevent them relieving the British taxpayer of a liability which someone else might be prepared to shoulder.

Mr. Law: I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept this Amendment. I must say that I am not entirely convinced by the general line of argument which he has put forward. Indeed, his main argument is still that it does not matter having in the Bill a limitation of five years on these pensions because, unless circumstances have changed, there is no intention whatever of depriving any of these beneficiaries of their pensions. I think that, in the main, was the right hon. Gentleman's contention. But in what respect could circumstances change in such a way that this five-year limitation becomes essential or even desirable? The argument, as I


understand it, is that some future Polish Government might be persuaded to take over this liability if they knew that the payments in respect of it had come to an end. I understood that that was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, just as it was the gist of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument the other night. But that argument really only seems to be valid if these unfortunate beneficiaries are to be used as a kind of lever with which to influence some future Polish Government. Unless His Majesty's Government are going to say to a Polish Government that, unless they accept this liability, these people are going to suffer—and the right hon. Gentleman has expressly declared that they are not going to say that—I cannot see how this limitation will in any way influence a favourable decision on the part of a future Polish Government.
With regard to the second point that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary, and which was, I think, also made by the right hon. Gentleman just now, that it would be convenient to review these pensions at the end of five years because they may have been established on insufficient documentation, and so on, which may very well be the case, I still cannot see why it is necessary to put this limitation of time into the Bill. I may be wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am, but I understand that it is possible under the Royal Warrant to review pensions if the degree of disability changes, or if conditions are no longer what they were or appeared to be at the time the pensions were granted. Therefore, I should have thought that, even without this limitation, the right hon. Gentleman would still have had the power to review these pensions at any time, if they appeared either too great or too small, and not merely after an interval of five years. I cannot see what is gained by keeping this limitation of five years in the Bill.
I can see that it does create among the beneficiaries a condition of uncertainty which will increase as the end of the five years approaches, and I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government should want to create that feeling of uncertainty. We on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I think we would very much like him to agree to reconsider this matter.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: I would like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) has said, because I cannot help feeling that what the Minister has said is at variance with the Bill. The Minister has stated that it is intended to carry on these pensions unless circumstances change. What the Bill says is that it is intended to stop these pensions unless circumstances change. The whole emphasis in the Bill is placed on the probable stoppage at the end of five years instead of, as the Minister has said, being put on their continuation. Generosity has a habit of cooling as time passes and memories fail. I would have thought that everything the Government desire to achieve could be achieved by a scheme, which could be properly revisable at intervals, to enshrine in the Bill this definite limitation. I hope the Minister will have another look at this point and see whether he can get the wording in the Bill to correspond more closely with the undertakings given to the Committee.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak): Two grounds were put forward by the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the Second Reading Debate for the incorporation in the Bill of this five years' limitation. One was that he was not entirely satisfied with the present system of documentation and so on, and he was not sure whether the pensions at present being paid might in some cases be too large or too small. If that is so, that is no argument for continuing for five years the pensions which may be too large or too small, and then revising them at the end of the five years. If there is this serious doubt as to whether the machinery is working satisfactorily, obviously, it should be revised at once. I was surprised to learn that before these pensions were agreed upon the matter went before a committee upon which two of the officials from the Ministry of Pensions were represented.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: They advised.

Mr. Molson: Clearly, there is no justification at all for putting the shadow of doubt fox the future over everybody, including the widows. I do not mention widows for the purpose of making any special appeal on their behalf although in their case it is difficult to take into account the uncertainty and to start off in a new


way of life, which may be possible in the case of the disabled man. There must be no case at all for this shadow of doubt because the administrative machinery for settling pensions may have been unsatisfactory. I do not wish to say anything more than has already been said on this side of the Committee about the argument that the inclusion of this period of time will in some way strengthen the hands of the Government in negotiating with the Provisional Government in Poland. The fact that these assurances have been so explicitly given that if there is obstinacy on their part this Government will underwrite these liabilities to all those who have been disabled, will clearly mean that no humanitarian pressure can be brought to bear upon them. It means that if they refuse to undertake the responsibility themselves, the British taxpayer will do so.
That has now definitely been settled, and, therefore, it cannot be used as an argument. I find that in the financial agreement between the United Kingdom and Poland we entirely reserve our right upon this matter. If it is possible for us, by diplomatic or other means, to bring pressure to bear upon them we are still able to do so. But I would appeal to the Government upon this point. In the Bill, which is broadly and generously conceived, there is something rather unworthy in having a special proviso in order to bring pressure to bear, in some way or other, upon the Government of Poland by arousing doubts and anxieties in the minds of those to whom we are prepared to give pensions.

Mr. Michael Astor: I was quite unable to follow the argument of the Minister of Pensions in this matter. He referred to changed circumstances and conditions in the future which may affect the matter and bring this Clause under review. But whatever the circumstances may be, these Poles can only belong to one of three categories. They will either be British subjects—or a large proportion of them will be—in which case their position is perfectly clear, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman; or they will be the subjects of a foreign country, in which case the matter of liability for pensions is equally clear; or they will be residents in this country, and not British subjects, in

which case we have had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman as to their prospects. There is one fact which is absolutely certain, and that is that a large number of these men will be absorbed into the life of the country, whether or not they are naturalised. The purpose of any Clause or any part of a Clause in this Bill must be to aim at instilling the maximum degree of confidence and desire for co-operation among the Poles in the resettlement corps. I must admit that I think the niggardly attitude which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in respect to this Amendment will do nothing to achieve this purpose, if the Government really wish to derive the maximum benefit from the Bill as a whole.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than one minute, and perhaps less than that. In view of the repeated, emphatic and unanimous dissatisfaction of hon. and right hon. Members opposite with the perfectly plain undertaking given by the Government not to discontinue the payment of these pensions at the end of five years, perhaps I might prevail on my right hon. Friend to withdraw the undertaking. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Members opposite will then be better satisfied.

Mr. Sutcliffe: That last remark by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was, I think, quite uncalled for. What we on this side of the Committee say is, that the Minister has not gone anything like far enough.

Mr. S. Silverman: He has given the undertaking.

Mr. Sutcliffe: That is not satisfactory to us. The only solution of this problem which would be satisfactory to us would be the acceptance of our Amendment. I must say, I was disappointed with, and rather surprised at, the fact that the Minister of Pensions was not able to accept the Amendment. I would like to add a few words to support the very sincere appeals which have been made to him from this side of the Committee to reconsider the position. This proviso in the Bill is wholly unworthy of it, and goes a long way to spoil what is an otherwise very good Bill. I think we are agreed on all sides of the Committee that


this Bill goes a long way to reward the wonderful services which the Poles gave to this country, and, indeed, to the whole world during the war, when they fought with such great distinction. There is no doubt at all about that. But the refusal of the Government to accept our Amendment will cause anxiety to a very large number of men, and needless anxiety as the years roll on. There will not be perhaps immediate anxiety; but as the five years get nearer to their end the anxiety will undoubtedly increase.
It does seem a great pity that that should be allowed to be the case. It may even result in undue pressure being put upon them to return to Poland, through their fear that they will lose their pensions after the five years. That is a very possible consequence which may follow the anxiety which will be caused. It does seem quite wrong that this period of a war pension should be limited to five years, and then continued only at the discretion of the Government; and, in view of all that has been said, and the facts that I have tried to put again before the Government, I do beg the Minister to say that he will, at any rate, look at this again between now and the Report stage, with a view to coming to a different decision from that at which he has arrived, if he can find it at all possible to do so.

Professor Savory: I should just like to confirm what my hon. Friends have said on this side of the House. I have gone over this Bill very carefully with some of these gallant Poles. They have asked me to interpret its very obscure language, and I have done my best. I did try to remove their impression with regard to this period of five years, because it does appear to them a most unfortunate prospect. I tried to assure them it would be considered, but I was not able to remove their apprehension. I cannot conceive why, in view of the pledge given by the Minister, this should not be put here in the Bill in black and white. I can conceive a situation arising, when we should have a less generous Minister than the present Minister of Pensions or a less broad-minded Home Secretary; and I do feel that we want some guarantee. I cannot conceive that we can grudge giving this guarantee to the men who stormed the Falaise Gap, to the men who fought in that marvellous parachute corps at

Arnhem, to the men who fought for us in Norway when our own troops were defeated. I appeal to the generosity of the Government. Can they refuse to give these men a definite assurance that their pensions will be continued for more than just the beggarly period of five years?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Minister has said that it is not the intention that these pensions are to be discontinued at the end of five years, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says they shall he discontinued. [HON. MEMBERS:"No.''] I will read what it says in the proviso in Clause 1:
provided that payments … shall be limited to such as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act, or such extended period, if any, as the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, may from time to time by order specify …
That is a definite statement that these pensions will be continued: but they may equally not be continued under this Clause; and there is no doubt whatever that, in the minds of the Poles themselves, there is considerable anxiety about this Clause.
When I hear all the jeers and laughter of Members of the Socialist Party, when the great services rendered by the Poles to this country and the Allies in general are mentioned, I am amazed; and I am ashamed to think that any body of people in this country would deride the great services of the Poles, or would do anything to lower what we can and should do for the Poles to ensure their future. There is no doubt that this Clause as it stands may indirectly exert pressure on the Poles.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Why not?

9 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Because we have pledged ourselves up to the hilt not to do anything to force the Poles to go back to Poland, and if there is indirect pressure, we are going back on our pledge. We all hope that circumstances may change in Poland, and that this Communist Government, set up under the elections, may not exist in five years' time. We all wish to see a real democratic government set up, but that may not happen, and as it may not happen, I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter, and will not lay down a period of five years for the payment of


these pensions, but will ensure that they will continue.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) spoke in most impassioned tones of how the Poles fought hard here and there, but many of the hard fighting Poles have gone back to Poland, and he has not one thought for them. His consideration is only for the reactionary Poles in this country.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Who are the reactionary Poles?

Wing-Commander Millington: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but I think it is important that one or two words should be said by someone who has tried to retain a slight sense of balance in this matter. Why is it that hon. Members opposite do not talk about any of our other Allies in the recent war? They do not lay this great emphasis on the gallantry—

Mr. Paget: On a point of Order. Have any of the last four speeches been relevant to this Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman: To admit that would imply a criticism of my own chairmanship. Suffice it to say they have been on the borderline.

Wing-Commander Millington: I am certain that most people in this country would like to feel that the Poles who are staying here could shed, within a short period of time, some of the prejudices they have in their minds, and could reconcile themselves with the rest of their compatriots and go home. I am convinced it is most desirable we should do nothing by legislation which will tie these people to this country. We have an assurance from the Government that if the conditions stay the same and the Poles in this country are still of the same outlook, these men will not lose the pensions provided for under this Measure. I would resist any attempt being made, particularly by way of legislation, to bind the Poles and makes less possible a reconciliation with their compatriots. I consider them to be completely misguided in their social and administrative outlook.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: In spite of what has been said, I think that hon. Members opposite are making more of this than

they should. I am sure that their fears are exaggerated. I was rather surprised that one or two Members opposite should speak of meanness. The hon. Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) said that we were niggardly. When we are taking over these people, putting them on exactly the same basis of pay and standards as our own people, paying them up to £600,000 a year, probably—and may be some of it will go on for 40 or 50 years—to say that we are guilty of niggardliness is too much—

Mr. Astor: I am not referring to the Bill; I am referring to the particular Clause with which we are dealing.

Mr. Paling: The hon. Member cannot separate the Clause from the Bill.

Mr. Astor: That is exactly what the Amendment is trying to do.

Mr. Paling: The hon. Member must accept the Bill as it is. It has been said that we want to use this question as a bargaining power with the Poles. It is not in our minds to do anything of the kind. We have no intention of treating them worse than our own people, and we do not think we are asking too much, in the circumstances, that we should be allowed to look at this matter again to see whether it needs any alteration.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman, most courteously in response to my request, read out the terms of the Protocol of 1943. I followed what he said as closely as I could but, not having a copy of the document, I have not given it detailed study. But, as I interpret the Protocol, under Article 2 we undertake the primary liability for payment of these pensions. Under Article 3, we reserve the right of recourse against the Polish Government after the close of hostilities. I have here a copy of Anglo-Polish Financial Agreement of June last year, which has not yet been ratified, in which the attitude of the British Government on the question of recourse against the Polish Government is made quite clear: It says:
The Government of the United Kingdom will leave in abeyance at present the question of the repayment of the military credits amounting to a further £47½ million, but reserve their right to re-open discussion on this question.
We made it clear that we would keep our rights open to proceed under the


Protocol against the Polish Government, at a later stage, with our claims in respect of these pensions. We say, about the five year limitation, that if the assurances given by His Majesty's Government are accepted—and I am sure they will be by the Polish soldiers—they will equally be accepted by the Polish Government. The right hon. Gentleman has given an unqualified assurance that these pensions will not be terminated at the end of five years. The Polish Government will accept that undertaking, just as the Polish soldiers wilt do, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues gain nothing whatever in bargaining power vis-a-vis the Polish Government by putting the five year limitation into the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Peake: I will not be interrupted. We must get on. The five year limitation in the Bill forms a Statute. The right hon. Gentleman knows that small disability pensions are sometimes commuted for small lump sums—

Mr. Wilfred Paling: They used to be.

Mr. Peake: I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has power to commute low rate disability pensions for lump sums. When these cases come before the pensions appeal tribunals they will look, not to undertakings given in the House by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the terms of the Statute to find out what is the entitlement of the injured soldier. I say, therefore, that on grounds of general policy, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman gives this assurance, and seeing that that assurance will undoubtedly be honoured, it would be much simpler to make his assurance correspond with the Statute and take this proviso out of the Bill. I think that all arguments have been exhausted on this subject, and I am sorry that I have failed to make any impression on hon. Members opposite, so let us now proceed to a Division.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 72.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[9.11 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, Scuth)
Goldrick, W.
Gooch, E. G.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Collindridge, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collins, V J.
Grey, C F.


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Comyns, Dr L.
Grierson, E.


Attewell, H. C.
Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Austin, H Lewis
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Awbery, S. S.
Corvedale, Viscount
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Ayles, W H.
Cove, W. G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hardy, E. A.


Bacon, Miss A
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Baird, J
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Balfour, A
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Barstow, P. G.
Deer, G.
Holman, P.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Delargy, H. J.
Hoy, J.


Belcher, J W
Diamond, J.
Hubbard, T.


Berry, H.
Debbie, W.
Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)


Beswick. F.
Donovan, T.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Bing, G H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Binns, J.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Blackburn, A. R.
Dye, S.
Irving, W. J


Blenkinsop, A.
Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Blyton, W R.
Edelman, M.
Janner, B.


Boardman, H
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, P. Astertey (Hitchin)


Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Keenan, W.


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kendall, W. D.


Braman, Major E. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Kenyon, C.


Brook, D (Halifax)
Fairhurst, F.
Kinley, J.


Brooks, T J (Rothwell)
Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Brown, George (Belper)
Follick, M.
Levy, B. W


Brown, T J (Ince)
Foot, M M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lipson, D. L.


Buchanan. G
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Burden, T W
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Longden, F.


Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)
Gallacher, W.
McAllister, G.


Byers, Frank
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mack, J. D


Castle, Mrs. B A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull; N.W.)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gibbins, J.
McLeavy, F.


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan. M. K. (Western Isles)


Chater, D.
Gilzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Cobb, F. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, G.




Mayhew, C. P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Friedland, H. M.
Randall, H. E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Mellish, R. J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Messer, F.
Reeves, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
 
Mikardo, Ian.
Rhodes, H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Tiffany, S.


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Titterington, M. F.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Tolley, L.


Morley, R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mort, D L
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Murray, J. D.
Shacklelon, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Naylor, T. E.
Sharp, Granville
Walker, G. H.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wallace, G. O. (Chislehurst)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstew, E.)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Neel-Buxton, Lady
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
West, D. G.


O'Brien, T.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Oldfield, W. H.
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Oliver, G. H.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wigg Col. G. E.


Orbach, M.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wilkes, L.


Paget, R. T.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wilkins, W. A.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth).
Smith. Ellis (Stoke)
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Pargiter, G. A.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Parkin, B. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Stamford, W.
Willis, E.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Steele, T.
Woodburn, A.


Pearson, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wyatt, W.


Piratin, P.
Stubbs, A. E.
Yates, V. F.


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Swingler, S.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sylvester, G. O.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)



Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES;




Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pitman, I. J.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Raikes, H V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Snadden, W. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, H. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, S. W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Sutcliffe, H.
 
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Vane, W. M. F.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gage, C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
 
Gammans, L. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr. Drewe and




Lieut.-Colonel Thorp


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "exceptions," to the end of the Subsection.
May I point out what this would mean? Subsection (3) of Clause 1 reads as follows:
Provisions of the said Royal Warrant applied by the scheme may be applied with modirications, or subject to conditions, limitations or exceptions …

We desire that the Subsection should end there. The remainder of the Subsection reads:
… and the scheme shall contain provision for securing that no payment shall be made thereunder to or in respect of any person as to whom the Minister of Pensions is satisfied that he is resident in Poland.
The purport of this is that that should any Polish person in this country desire in future years to emigrate abroad he will


retain the pension, but if he desires to return to the country of his birth he will not receive it. In this connection the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said on 12th February with regard to the Poles in this country:
They will be treated in exactly the same way as British soldiers. If they emigrate they will take with them the same rates as disabled British soldiers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 474.]
In that sense, I think this is entirely satisfactory. The case for my Amendment is, therefore, clear cut and I hope the Committee will accept it. Let us examine it. Hon. Members on all sides have said at one time or another that in time to come Poles who are now resident here will seize their opportunity of going back to Poland. Members of the Opposition have qualified this by saying that it would be only in circumstances of a different type of Government in that country, but we cannot foresee the future and, however that may be, we all really believe that a Pole should be in Poland however and whenever it may be.
We have also heard statements from different Ministers with regard to the encouragement which is being given to the Poles in this country to return to Poland and the efforts which are being made to counteract the propaganda which takes place in the Polish Army to the opposite effect. But surely the present arrangement is in conflict with such statements? Not only are we to provide pensions for Poles in this country—subject to the five years' proviso—but also, when the five years have expired, any Pole who leaves this country and goes to Canada, for example, will be rewarded, as if it were a merit, in that he will continue to receive his pension. On the other hand, if he decides to return to Poland he will not continue to receive the pension. There may be hon. Members of this Committee who will argue that the Polish Government should be responsible—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Hear, hear.

Mr. Piratin: In that case may I recall to hon. Members who were present at the time—as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was not—that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said with regard to a question which was being raised on an earlier Amendment in connection with

Poles who had served in the Allied Forces? The right hon. Gentleman said that if a Frenchman served in the French Forces and came to this country after having received an injury in the course of that service, we could not be expected to be responsible for giving him a pension. Since the Amendment in question has been accepted, hon. Members presumably agree that since the man had served in the French Forces the French Government were, in fact, responsible. That argument can be extended here—

Major Bramall: Would the hon. Member not agree that the correct analogy is that of a British soldier returning to Britain after having served abroad?

Mr. Piratin: My point still remains. These Poles served under British command—

Hon. Members: But in the Polish Forces.

Mr. Piratin: But under British command. I am only quoting what the Home Secretary said about an hour ago, and I think I have it right. In this case they served under British command—

Hon. Members: In the Polish Forces.

Mr. Piratin: But under British command—

Mr. S. Silverman: As I understood the arrangements made during the war, the whole of the British Forces who fought from D-day onwards through France and Germany fought under the command of General Eisenhower. Would the hon. Gentleman say that that makes the American Government responsible for them?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Piratin: I have nothing to answer. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wants to joke with me across the Floor, he is at liberty to do so—

Mr. S. Silverman: It is not a joke.

Mr. Piratin: I ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and some other hon. Members who seem to agree with him to read the first Amendment the Home Secretary accepted, which contained the words:
While serving under British command.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did not sec fit to raise the question of the United States then. The questions are


identical. These people were under British command. All I am asking is that Poles in this country who are about to receive pensions as the result of wounds inflicted or sickness incurred while fighting under British command should be entitled to receive that pension. I do not see the purpose of the intervention. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne accepts that if a Pole goes to Canada—I take it he accepts it—he is entitled to his pension. If that is accepted, all I ask is that if the Pole returns to Poland he should continue to receive his pension. That is the purport of my argument, which I believe to be a strong one.
I am waiting to hear what the Minister will say, but I hope that other hon. Members of the Committee will support my Amendment. I am not exactly longing for or going on my knees for such support, but I am particularly interested to see whether hon. Members opposite will support it. I would recall what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said earlier in an intervention. The argument is logical. There may be some administrative twist to it with which the Minister will admonish me in due course. If hon. Members opposite are so generously inclined towards the Poles who desire to stay in this country, they should extend that generosity to Poles who go back to Poland. I hope to receive support from some parts of the Committee even if it comes from the other side.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), if he will allow me to call him so, will not think I am making a joke about this. He has made a perfectly serious argument. I have listened to it, but there seems to be just no force at all in what he said and his contention is based on a complete misapprehension of what the Bill is about. This Bill is intended to secure that this country shall take financial responsibility for cases for which normally we would not be responsible at all; that we should take upon ourselves the responsibility of paying pensions to soldiers wounded in a foreign army. That is what we are doing, and it is an unprecedented thing to do. I think it is a right thing to do in the special circumstances, but it is paying the pensions of soldiers who belong to a foreign

army, and we are doing it because we believe that, in the special circumstances which have arisen, we cannot compel them to go back to the country whose responsibility they actually are. It is true that we say we will only take that responsibility while they remain members of a foreign force under British command, but that is for a very good reason of which my hon. Friend approves. It is in order to make certain that soldiers of the Polish forces, or a Polish force serving under a German command against us or against our Allies on the East, should not benefit by this extraordinary Measure.
Then we go further, and say we will not only pay him that pension while he lives here, but we will pay him that pension if he goes anywhere else in the world with one exception, and the exception is if he returns to his own country. But if he returns to his own country, he ceases to be a member of the class for whom this Bill is being passed. It is being passed for the benefit of those members of the Polish force under British command who cannot go back to their country. If we were to pay the pensions of those who can go back to their country, we would have to pay the pensions, in fairness and logic, of all those Poles who never left Poland at all. [Laughter.] Certainly, that would be the inevitable consequence. If you take upon yourself the onus of paying the pensions of people who belong to foreign forces merely because they were allied with you, or with a force under your command, then there is no reason in the world why we should not accept that for everybody. It might apply to a great many other countries besides Poland. All I am trying to show the hon. Member is that the exception which is made here is a necessary and logical exception because, in that case, you would go outside the class of people we are intending to protect by this legislation, and I should have thought that was a perfectly fair and simple point.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I think the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) had in his mind a rather narrow point when moving this Amendment, namely, the point that if a Pole here gets a pension, and then goes back to Poland, it is stopped in certain circumstances, but if this Amendment were accepted, it would be wider than that. It would include a


lot of other people also, particularly women. I will give him some details. There are still resident in Poland a considerable number of widows whose husbands were killed whilst fighting under British command. As regards the men themselves, some 60,000 Poles have left the United Kingdom, the bulk of them for Poland. It is, moreover, held that ultimately many more will also return. Both these widows and disabled men must look to their own Government for pension Not only would any other course be unreasonable on merits, but for the British Government to accept any liability in respect of them would place a substantial burden on the British Exchequer, and would create really insuperable administrative problems.
No definite information as to numbers is available, but the number of Poles killed while serving with the British command was over 7,000. In addition, a number would have died of disease. The number of widows resident in Poland may be extensive. No information is available as to the proportion of those men who have returned to Poland who are suffering from some disability due to their war service. But if the proportion were only of the order of 5 to 10 per cent., the total numbers involved would be substantial. Now I come to the narrower point of the man who decides to go back. It is intended, if he decides to go back to Poland, that his pension here should cease. We propose in that case to give him 26 weeks pension payment as a lump sum. But, if he wishes to go back to Poland, he cannot expect his pension to be paid from the British Exchequer.

Mr. Gallacher: It may have been better to have extended the Amendment to make it read that pensions would be paid until proper arrangements can be made with the Polish Government. It seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory situation for these brave fighters, whom hon. Members opposite are very anxious to bring to our attention. A man may have lost an arm, or an arm and a leg, or both his arms, or he may be blind, but he may always desire to get back to his own country. Everyone understands the great difficulties that exist in Poland. I would like to encourage him to go back.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the hon. Member agree that the very best inducement the Polish Government could give

such a man to persuade him to return, would be to offer to pay his pension when he returns? Does the hon. Member think it would be any advantage to the Polish State to have a lot of British military pensioners?

Mr. Gallacher: I quite agree that it would be desirable for the Polish Government to help as far as they can, but, as has been remarked, Poland was left in a devastated condition. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have spoken so much of the brave and gallant Pole, that one would have thought the war was won by the brave and gallant Pole. If these gallant fellows, broken in body, blinded, crippled, go back to their own country, are they to be no further concern of ours? We know that Polish officers in this country, as a consequence of conditions which obtained before the war, when there was a military caste there, had Fascist ideas. But are we to say that whatever the condition of these people desiring to go back to their own country, in a state of terrible poverty, where the hardest and most conscientious work must be done, even while terrorists with contacts in London are trying to sabotage reconstruction—are we to say that as soon as these men, the men who have fought under British Command, and who fought at Falaise Gap, as the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) said, go from these shores they will be forgotten completely? I only wish these Polish officers who are here could be transported to Northern Ireland. It would not be long before they realised that the hon. Member for Queen's University and his friends were their worst possible enemies. I hope some consideration will be given by the Government to these men who have given loyal and gallant service, and that they will be able to go back to their awn country, and will be given conditions in which they can earn their own livelihood.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Law: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, after "Treasury," to insert:
in order to bring the scheme or any substituted scheme made under this Subsection into conformity with any Royal Warrant that may be issued.
The point we are seeking to make on this Amendment is very simple. It is


common ground throughout the Committee that the purpose of this Clause is to ensure that so far as pensions for disablement and death for the Armed Forces are concerned, the Poles shall be treated in the same way as if they had been members of the British Forces. It seems to us that Subsection (4) differentiates between the Polish forces and the British forces, and that because of that differentiation, the purpose of this Clause is largely defeated, or may be defeated, and that the intention of the House, when it gave the Bill its Second Reading, might also possibly be defeated. The distinction between what is proposed here and what is proposed for members of our own forces is that under this Bill it is open to the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, to amend the scheme as it applies to the Polish forces, and to produce an entirely new scheme.
I suggest to the Minister and to the Committee that there are three possible reasons why the Minister, with or without the consent of the Treasury, might wish to amend the scheme. In the first place, he might wish to do so in order to place the Poles in a less favourable position than they would occupy if they were members of our own forces. I take it that that is not his intention. In the second place, he might wish to place the Polish forces in a more favourable position than they would be if they were members of our own forces. I take it that that is not his intention. The only other reason I can see why he might wish to amend the scheme is in order to bring it into line with any amendment which there might be in the Royal Warrant. If that is the intention—I cannot see that there can be any other intention which the Minister might have—I suggest to the Minister that it would be as well to state that intention in the Bill. That is what, in effect, our Amendment proposes.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I am informed that any provision seeking to do what the Amendment proposes would run counter to Subsection (3) of this Clause, which provides specifically that the Royal Warrant
may he applied with modifications, or subject to conditions, limitations or exceptions, ….

The effect of the Amendment would seem to be that while the original scheme may contain modifications of the Royal Warrant, any subsequent new provisions would have to apply automatically. We propose to do certain things, one of which concerns the onus of proof. We cannot allow that to stay. It is impossible to work it in a good many cases which we shall have to decide. There will be in some cases, perhaps, no papers whatever, no information of any kind, and certainly no information of the prewar history of these people, all of which considerations are weighed in the balance very much in this country in the decision a3 to entitlement. That is clearly one thing we cannot do.
9.45 p.m.
There is another matter too which came up in the courts and which we have accepted as a compelling presumption, which means that if a man—or a woman for that matter—went into the Services A.1 physically and came out, invalided or discharged, something less or worse than A.', then there is a compelling presumption in his or her favour that the worsening of the condition is due to war service. In the circumstances of the Poles, it would be impossible to accept a condition like that, and it is our intention to deal with the Poles on the evidence, such as it is, that is available, to deal generously too, I hope. Clearly we cannot accept this Amendment. If we put this limitation in it would mean that all those things would grow.

Mr. Law: In the light of the explanation which the Minister has just given, I intend to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, but before I do so I would like to suggest to the Minister that in withdrawing our Amendment we set him an example which he might well follow by accepting our next Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher: I am not satisfied yet about the Amendment that was accepted and its relation to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and I want the Minister to tell me, if he can, what men of the Polish Resettlement Forces have been under


British command and are not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b). There is, in my opinion, no need whatever for paragraph (c) once that Amendment has been accepted, unless it is intended to bring in under (c) certain individuals who were not under British command. There is nobody in the Polish Resettlement Forces who has been under British command who is not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b). Will the Minister tell us the people in the Polish Resettlement Forces who came under British command and are not covered by (a.)and (b)?
The other point I want to make concerns the interjection by the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall), and this will be an answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If an Englishman who had served in the French Foreign Legion came back to England, who would pay his pension, the French Government or the British Government?

Major Legge-Bourke: I want to make a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to reconsider the question of those Poles who served with the Allies, because when the Minister of Pensions gave the reply just now he told us that there were a great many in Poland today who had served with the British Army during the war. While the argument of the Home Secretary in reply to what said—

Major Bramall: On a point of Order. Is it permissible, when a matter has been thoroughly debated on an Amendment, to raise it again on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman: I hope hon. Members will be moderate in their further references to such matters.

Major Legge-Bourke: Since that Amendment was accepted, certain things have been said by the Minister of Pensions to which I want to draw attention. When the Home Secretary replied to my remarks on the first Amendment, he said that if a Frenchman who had fought for France came to this country, one would expect the pension of that Frenchman to be paid from France. There are men in Poland today who fought under British command. I should say that I do not agree with the Home Secretary's argument and I do not suggest that we should pay pensions to Poles in Poland who fought under British

command, but I do say that if the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right that those who fought with the Allies during the war and are now in this country should have their pensions paid by the Allies for whom they fought, we are just as much under an obligation to pay a pension to those Poles now in Poland who fought under British command.

Mr. Ede: I thought that the point which has just been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was effectively disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whose clear logic I always recognise, and I regret that I am unable to state my arguments as concisely and irrefutably as he does. It seems to me that there can be no doubt that we have no means by which we can check what happens to a man in any other force than our own. On that I base what I have to say.

Major Legge-Bourke: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not for one moment trying to tell him that we should pay a pension to Poles in Poland, but if the argument which he used against me when speaking on the first Amendment is a good one, I still maintain that we are under a similar obligation to pay a pension to those Poles in Poland. On the point of Order aspect of this Clause, I am glad now that I said what I did say at the end of the Second Reading Debate on this Bill. It is obvious from what has been said this evening that we have not appreciated that there are two different main groups of Poles in this country who intend to stay here during the next few years. There are those who have made up their minds never to go back to Poland, who never want to go back to the type of life they lived before the war, apart from what they might get now, and there are those who intend to go back as soon as they feel it is convenient for them to do so. I ask the Home Secretary to remember that to put in this qualifying provision regarding five years—it is true there was an Amendment to alter it, but the right hon. Gentleman did not accept that Amendment—means that those men who want to stay here permanently and become British citizens for good and all, if they are to have a qualification about five years—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Major Milner. I recognise that even though


a point has been dealt with and disposed of in a Debate on an Amendment, it is still within the bounds of Order to raise it on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"; but does not the Standing Order referring to tedious repetition apply? We have heard every word of this speech before.

The Chairman: Not having been in the Chair at the time, I have not had the disadvantage of hearing it. It is the, case that there is a Rule against repetition, and I hope, the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not continue to repeat anything he has already said.

Major Legge-Bourke: I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, and I have no intention of causing dissatisfaction to the Chair if it is considered that it is a disadvantage to have to listen to me.

Mr. Messer: No, it is the hon. and gallant Member's repetition.

Major Legge-Bourke: It is not a question of repetition at all. What I am saying now is fair comment on the Clause as it stands after one Amendment has been accepted and others rejected. I feel it is only right that we should comment on this Clause, and my comment is that it caters fairly well for those who may conceivably go back to Poland at the end of five years or before the five years are up, but it does not cater for those who intend to stay here permanently. It seems that some of the people are having grave doubts about His Majesty's Government at the moment. If a number of people who understand English have that opinion at the present time, what are these Poles thinking who do not understand a word of the language?

Mr. Ede: I had hoped that this Bill could have, been discussed on the basis that we desire all Members of the Committee to do the right thing by these people, and it is to be regretted, therefore, that in the closing words of his speech the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) should endeavour to make one of those cheap party gibes which may be legitimate on matters where there is an acute controversy between the two sides of the Committee, but which I do not think are very helpful when we are trying to do our best

for a large number of men whom both sides of the House desire to honour for the service they did to this country. Quite frankly, I am not prepared to listen to any argument put forward from the other side of the House based on that kind of spirit, and if on this matter we are to make cheap party scores we shall degenerate into party discussion on the Bill, which I do not think will be very helpful. I am not going to reply further to the points made by the hon. and gallant Member, for he spoke more than once on the Amendment which we accepted at the beginning after we had announced that the Government were willing to accept it.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) as to why the words "the Polish Resettlement Forces" are found in line 5 of page 2, the answer is that a man may meet death or be injured while in the Polish Resettlement Corps. It could be his misfortune that that injury would deprive him of the use of some of his faculties by the use of which he is enabled to earn his living. We desire to include these people who have left the Polish forces and joined the Polish Resettlement Corps, which are a unit of the British Army. I am sure that no one would desire that on that mere technicality a man should be deprived, through carrying out an. order given him by his superior officer, of the benefits which soldiers in the British Army secure.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Am I to understand that only those who served under British command in the Resettlement Force will be so treated, or does anyone in the Polish Resettlement Force—for instance, someone who fought against us and is now in that force—come under this provision?

Mr. Ede: Everybody in the Resettlement Corps is under British command. It is a British unit and the people in it are carrying out orders given by the competent British military authority. As I said on an earlier Amendment, there may be men who at one time fought in the German army by compulsion and who, when they got the opportunity, enlisted in the British forces, or served under British command. If their disability is caused by what they did under British command, they will get suitable recognition. If their disability is caused by what happened under German command, they get no recognition under


the Bill. The same thing applies to the people in the Polish Resettlement Corps. If at any time they served under German command, they get nothing in respect of any disability incurred while under that command. But if an injury now occurs to them, they will get a proper recognition.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Allowances from the Assistance Board.)

Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "war", to insert:
on of before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven.
I can be very brief in arguing this Amendment, not because it is not important but because the principle seems to be quite simple. As the Clause stands, it seems to leave the door permanently ajar. This Clause deals with civilians. We have now left the question of the fighting forces and we are dealing with the civilian elements now in this country. Subsection (2, a) provides for civilians who, for one reason or another, come under the general heading of "circumstances attributable to war." If the Bill is generous to the people who fought in the Armed Forces, certainly it is setting a precedent in regard to civilians.
This country is traditionally hospitable to political refugees of all kinds. There are many people in this country today, not only from Poland, who have come through "circumstances attributable to war" and who, for one reason or another, do not wish to return to their own country. Here, for the reasons that have been generally agreed, we give special preference to Polish citizens. That is all right, so far as it goes, except that there is no time limit in the Clause as drafted. It seems to me that, as many Polish citizens are still outside Poland and would like to come into this country—and will come into this country—they will be able to come within the umbrella of Clause 2 unless it is amended. Thus, they will be able to get all these very special privileges of allowances from the Assistance Board.
The time limit suggested by the Amendment is 1st January of this year. I suggest that that is reasonable. Anyone who came into this country after 1st January of this year presumably should not be

regarded in the same category as those who came during the war or immediately afterwards. We must have a time limit somewhere, and I think 1st January is reasonable. I am not concerned with odd individuals. The main body of people I have in mind are the huge numbers of displaced persons on the Continent. Concerning the displaced persons who are in camps in Germany and Italy, are we going to say that the Poles who can, by one means or another, get into this country at any time, are to get the allowances laid down in this Clause? If I am wrong in assuming that they can, I hope the Home Secretary will say so, but I feel that, as this Clause stands at the moment, my Amendment is essential in order to clarify the point.

Mr. Ede: As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) has said, we are now dealing with people who did not serve in the Armed Forces of the Polish Republic, and, therefore, we have got away from the limitations that we were imposing, and were engaged in widening, in the discussion on the last Clause. The people mainly concerned are the civil servants of the London Polish Government, and the effect of this Amendment, in the main, would be that those civil servants of the London Polish Government who were employed in this country would be brought in, but those people who were employed by the London Polish Government, but were stationed abroad, for one reason or another, might not be brought in—in fact, would not be brought in—unless they had managed to return to this country prior to 1st January this year.
I am quite sure that everyone will feel that, where that is the class of person concerned, that would be a quite unjustifiable distinction, and, therefore, we do not desire to close the door in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend looks at the words in the Clause he will see that those people who enter or remain in the United Kingdom in view of circumstances attributable to the war have to be certified, where there is any doubt, by the Secretary of State as having entered in those circumstances. Every alien who enters this country is interviewed at the port of arrival by an immigration officer belonging to my Department, and if he has no


good reason for coming in, or if he has no visa on his passport, or, let us say, like Professor Smertenko, I object to his coming in, my officer is able to reject him, and, at any rate, at that stage, very strict inquiries are made. It is not my intention to widen admission to the benefits of this Clause to others than the people employed as civilians by the London Polish Government or their relatives, and I do not think it would be fair to draw a line between those who have come in before a certain date and those who come in in the future. I can assure my hon. Friend that, generally, admission of displaced persons who have had no connection with the London Polish Government will not come within the categories that will receive my certificate as arriving here through causes attributable to the war, in the meaning that is to be attached to it in this Clause.

Major Bramall: I am very glad that the Minister has been able to give this assurance that it is not a case of a job lot of displaced persons being allowed to take advantage of this Clause, and I can see that he will exercise his scrutiny when considering whether he should admit Poles to this country. I would like him to bear one point in mind. He has said that he intends to admit the people who were either the employees of the London Polish Government or their relatives. I would ask him for the assurance that he will see that these people have not come to this country previously for some good reason. The point I have in mind is that there are a number of these employees of the London Polish Government whose purpose for being in whatever part of the world they are at the moment is, quite definitely, to carry on their activities as representatives of the London Polish Government in opposition to the present Polish Government recognised by this Government. I do not think that we should allow these people to remain at large in the world to carry on this propaganda for just as long as they wish and then, when they feel that they have done their work, to return to this country and receive all the benefits of this Bill. I hope that, when considering this point on each application for admission, my right hon. Friend will satisfy himself that these people are coming to this country at the particular time that they arrive because they have been unavoidably

prevented from coming earlier and not merely because they are staying at the desire of the so-called Polish Government to carry on their work at their convenience.

Mr. Warbey: I hope the Committee will not think that those of us who are concerned about this Subsection desire to prevent Polish civilians from coming to this country, or if they do so, from availing themselves of the social services of this country. Some of us take quite strongly the view that this country should, in the future, open its doors more widely than before to workers of all countries, and that, in so doing, it must be prepared, not only to admit them, but to see that they obtain reasonable treatment on the same standards as British workers. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that a general admission of alien workers must be covered by general conditions, and that there is no case, in that respect, for making special conditions applicable to Poles as such. Therefore, we were concerned that this should not be an open door to Poles of any description who might come in at any time in the future and avail themselves of special privileges not available to other civilian aliens.
I am pleased to hear the assurances given by the Home Secretary. I would, however, like to ask him two questions. First, can he give the Committee the approximate figure of persons covered by this Subsection, and, second, is he satisfied that, as worded, the Subsection does enable him to prevent persons whom he does not want to admit from availing themselves of its provisions? As it stands, the right hon. Gentleman has only to issue a certificate if there is any doubt. A displaced person who is coming in might well argue that there is no doubt whatever that he is coming in owing to circumstances attributable to the war, and that, therefore, no certificate is required. I wonder whether the Home Secretary can tell us if that point would be covered?

Mr. Ede: With regard to the number, it is very difficult to give that with any precision. The figures which I have heard mentioned by people who ought to know, and who advise me on this subject, range from 12 to 30. It will be seen, therefore, that the number is quite small. In regard to anybody getting in who should not, it is, of course, my job to


prevent people I do not want to come into this country for reasons for which I am answerable to this House. Judging by the correspondence I occasionally receive, I appear to be doing it almost too efficiently. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not whether the person himself has a doubt, but whether the Assistance Board have a doubt which decides whether the person comes within the category or not. When the Pole who has been admitted goes to the Assistance Board and claims assistance under this Clause, and they have doubt about his bona fides, they come to me and ask if I am prepared to issue my certificate. The various documents I have relating to the man are then perused —and generally they are fairly numerous and exact—and I issue my certificate in accordance with the facts that are there recorded. It is not my intention to do more than admit the kind of people to whom I alluded in my first reply on this Amendment I do not wish to differentiate between these people merely because they happen to arrive one side or the other of midnight on a particular night.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not think my right hon. Friend need be quite so apologetic. I think we want to avoid this rapidly growing tyrannical obstructionist attitude to the free movement of people about the world. At the moment it seems to be harder for a poor man to get into this country than for a rich man to get into Heaven.

Mr. Pritt: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Silverman: The answer with regard to the difficulty of a rich man getting into Heaven is that I accept it on authority. As for the difficulty of a poor man getting into this country, I have plenty of evidence.

Mr. H. Hynd: In view of the assurances given by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn;

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Linstead: Before we part with this Clause, I would like to ask the Home Secretary about one of the categories of people referred to in this Clause, whose position requires a little consideration. The category of people to whom I am

referring are those described in Clause 2 (2) (b), namely:
former members of any of the fortes then tinned in subsection (1) of Section one.
As I understand the argument, a Pole may pass through three categories. He starts off as a member of the Polish armed forces. He then goes to the Resettlement Corps and then into civil life, either with work or with no work, in which case he has need of an allowance and comes under Clause 2 (1). I would like to ask what will be the position of some of the senior and older of the Polish officers who will be affected by this transfer from the armed forces to the Resettlement Corps and then to civil life. When some of the most senior of these people have no further work in the Resettlement Corps, presumably they will not be kept there, as they are at present, and in receipt of their full salary. They will go out into civil life, and those men, some of the most distinguished of the people we are trying to help, will, at 60 or 70 years of age, find it extraordinarily difficult to obtain work at all. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a place which they would fit. Now, are those people suddenly to find themselves, between one day and another, reduced from the full salary of, maybe, a major-general to whatever is the small weekly allowance, 17s. 6d., or something of that kind, which they can get under this Clause? It that is the situation it ought to be brought out into the light of day, or we ought to know what the position of these men will be. Certainly the length of time they are to be allowed to remain in the Resettlement Corps will be a very vital matter to those quite distinguished officers. I hope the Home Secretary can throw some light on this matter.

Mr. Peake: I should like to put a point to the Home Secretary before we part with this Clause, with regard to the meaning of the fourth category of persons who may qualify for an allowance from the Assistance Board. It is contained in Subsection (2, d):
persons who have been permitted to enter the United Kingdom on or after first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, as being followers of and dependent on a body of Polish forces entering the United Kingdom….
I must confess I am extremely puzzled by the meaning of the phrase, "followers of and dependent on a body of Polish forces." In order to obtain an allowance


under Subsection (1) a person has to be in need. But in order to be a person who qualifies as an applicant for an allowance under paragraph (d) he or she has to be a person who has entered the United Kingdom as a follower of and as a person dependent on a body of Polish forces.
The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) thought this a very bad phrase, and she saiu so during the Second Reading speech of the Home Secretary. She asked:
What are 'followers'?
the right hon. Gentleman said:
I am quite sure that all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have ever served in the Armed Forces have a pretty good idea of the heterogeneous mass of people who can be described as camp followers'.
A little later the hon. Lady said:
I think 'camp followers' is the wrong term to use.
And the right hon. Gentleman replied:
I did not introduce the word followers into this discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th February, 1947: Vol 433. C. 375–6.]
But the right hon. Gentleman, or some body else, has introduced the word into the Bill Therefore, I think we are en titled to know the meanings of these two conditions. A person has to have been a follower and also to have been dependent on a body of Polish forces at the moment he or she entered the United Kingdom. I can well understand anybody being dependent on an individual. It is a common phrase in our Acts of Parliament. The question one always then asks is: Does it mean wholly dependent, or partly dependent, or mainly dependent? The epithet "dependent" is invariably qualified by something which explains the test to be applied. But here the condition which has to be fulfilled is that the person was dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering the United Kingdom. A person may have been dependent upon an individual in a Polish force, but I do not know whether that means the person was dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering the United Kingdom.
Were these people on the pay roll, or something of that sort, of the Polish forces at the time they came in? We all know there were a large number of camp followers with the Polish troops in Italy. Why is it necessary as a condition of applying for an allowance—one has to be

in need before one gets one—that one was dependent upon a body of Polish forces at the time one entered the United Kingdom? It may have been that one had some means of one's own, and had some money; but if one loses it all and is in need, surely one ought to qualify for an allowance under Subsection (1) of the Clause. The condition, that one had some money and therefore was not dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering, does seem to me to be a harsh test to apply if, since entering, one has fallen into need. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will explain this before we part with the Clause.

Mr. H. Hynd: Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) define the qualifications for obtaining these allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Act. One qualification is "that he is in need of an allowance"; the next, "that he has no work" or not sufficient work; and another is that he is required to be registered for employment. It seems to me that the Clause makes no provision, as is usual under the Unemployment Regulations, for a man who is registered for work, and who is offered suitable employment, and refuses to accept it. I wonder if there is any omission there, and why it is not necessary to provide for people in that circumstance.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr): Before we part with this Clause we must acknowledge the unlimited generosity and magnanimity of the Government towards these unfortunate people who are amongst us. But I am just a little bit perturbed, because I am compelled to compare the conditions laid down here with those other conditions that govern the destinies of our own people who may be unemployed. Perhaps I could satisfy myself by putting one or two questions. Is it the intention of the Government under Clause 2 to waive the conditions determining unemployment assistance as now applied to our own people? What scales of payment will be applied under Clause 2? Will they be equal to, or will they be greater than, the scales of payment that now apply to our own people? There is not a British man or woman who is entitled to assistance from the Assistance Board unless he or she can prove to that Board that when he or she became unemployed he or she had paid a certain minimum of contributions. I find it difficult to be impressed by the tre-


mendous support given to this Bill by the Opposition, because invariably they have almost malignantly opposed any kind of improvement in the conditions laid down for our own unemployed in this country.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order. You will, I suppose, Major Milner, allow other hon. Members of the Committee to controvert the hon. Member's argument on this point?

The Chairman: I hope any hon. Member who follows the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) will confine himself to the Question that Clause 2 stand part; and I hope, also, that the hon. Member for Merthyr will do the same.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Davies: I am trying to do so. Possibly I may satisfy the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) by saying that there may have been one or two exceptions amongst Opposition Members. I should like to know, also, under what circumstances the Board might request an applicant to register for employment. That is also important. I do not think it will be necessary, in the future, when requests are made to the Government to consider favourably improving the conditions of the unemployed, that we shall have to press as determinedly as we had to press in the past. But we will be entitled to request that our people shall be treated with precisely the same measure of generosity—and I am not asking much—as is being extended to the people who are covered by this Measure.

Mr. Bing: There is one short point which I think would have saved the time of the Committee, and clarified the point put by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peaks). I would remind the Committee of the definition of "followers" in the Hague Convention. There, the definition is "Sutlers, contractors and newspaper correspondents." That being so, it is desirable that my right hon. Friend should put some limitation to these words in this Clause.

Professor Savory: I must say that I share the misgivings of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench in regard to the words, "dependent on." The right hon. Gentleman has said that they include the Polish Government and its officials here—the Government which was recognised

until July 5th, 1945. In what sense can those officials, and they include a number of very distinguished men—for instance, the great Polish Ambassador in Berlin who resisted Hitler, and the very distinguished Ambassador in Paris—how can these men be said to be "dependent on"? I can understand that they are "followers of," but in no sense are they dependent on the Polish forces. I should be very much afraid that some difficulty might arise in the interpretation of these words. The legitimate Polish Government in London employed, roughly, 1,000 officials. Of these, 200 are out of work at present. How any of them who arrived with the legitimate Polish Government from France can be said to be "dependent on" these Polish Forces, I do not understand. I sympathise with the desire of the Home Secretary to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and I am far from obstructing it; but I would be glad if he would remove the unhappy feeling which I have regarding these words.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely the words referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) are covered by Subsection (2, a). It is a very wide provision, and refers to Poles whose registration under the Aliens Order took place on or after 1st September, 1936. That is extremely wide, so wide that one wonders who there is left to come under paragraph (d). I hope that the Home Secretary will be very specific as to what type of person he envisages. Presumably there are non-Poles, because all the Poles are covered in paragraph (a). In any event, I hope the Home Secretary will say how many people will be involved in this provision.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: There is one further point on this Clause. There are a certain number of Poles who were formerly in the Polish forces, and who now have found civilian employment for themselves without having passed through the Polish Resettlement Corps. For good or bad reasons, they object to joining the Polish Resettlement Corps. In some cases it is because it would involve a long journey to a distant part of the country, losing a certain amount of time, and other reasons. As I understand it, these people, being included in the category (2, b), will become entitled to benefits from the Assistance Board if at


some future date they fall out of employment, even without passing through the Polish Resettlement Corps. In view of this apprehension which exists in the country, I do hope that the Minister will be able to give a specific reply.

Mr. Ede: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), these persons are either former members or members of the forces who have been relegated from service with the forces, and they come within the benefits of this Clause. With regard to points put by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies), the conditions are to be found in the Schedule, and, having regard to the difficult circumstances of bringing these people on to an equality with British subjects, they will receive the same treatment as British subjects and will be subject to the same requirements as are demanded of British subjects. If they want the benefit of the Assistance Board, they will be required to register for employment, just as a British subject is required to do.

Mr. H. Hynd: And to accept suitable work?

Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. Member to the Schedule. The hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) asked me about his reading of the Bill and the kind of persons who, he alleged, were to be described as "followers" and dependants on the Polish Forces. They are not. They come under the earlier categories mentioned in the same Subsection. They are, for instance, the Poles who came in with the Polish Second Corps, and who were not registered as aliens on landing. They were brought in under military control, and they are being "screened," and when they pass out into civil life they will be registered as aliens. The people he has in mind have been registered as aliens and they come within the first of the categories mentioned in that Subsection.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked me about this phrase which links up "followers" and dependants. I must say it was very difficult to find words which would accurately describe the people we wanted to bring in. At one time we wanted to say "followers accompanying." Some of the men have been brought over. Their wives and

children are following them. They would not be "followers" accompanying these people, and, therefore, we had to find some phrase which would definitely link the persons together so that their connection with the Second Corps might be established. These are the best words which we have been able to find. I admit that it does appear a little awkward to make them appear to be dependant on the Forces when they may have been dependant on only one member of those Forces, and it is because of the somewhat awkward phrase that the right hon. Member is worried.
I will promise to undertake to have this point looked at between now and the Report stage in order to make it quite clear that these persons are to be limited to those dependent on a member of the Polish forces or who come legitimately within the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), which is the more general understanding of the word "followers." It is not our intention in this matter, within the limitations I have mentioned, to try to exclude people who, on grounds of compassion and recognition of their services, we think should be brought within the Clauses. I hope we shall be able to find a form of words, if these do not do it, to carry out that intention.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will my right hon. Firend look at the title of the First Schedule? We are told that modifications will be made in unemployment insurance to meet the requirements of some of the cases we have been considering tonight. My right hon. Friend has not answered my question.

Mr. Ede: I had hoped that I had answered it. These people cannot be put into the same category as those who have lived for many years in this country. We desire to assimilate them to the British way of life. We want to make conditions for them similar to those for persons who are about the same age, and who go to the same kind of employment. To do that, it will be necessary to have certain modifications of the wording of the regulations, or it will not be possible to bring them within their ambit. So far as is humanly possible, the same conditions will be available for these people as for British subjects. If we manage to do something that is rather more liberal for them than my hon. Friend and others may think we


do for British subjects, I have no doubt that we shall find them quoted as reliable precedents when the Minister of Labour has to bring forward modifications before the House.
I regret that I did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead.) What is to happen to the high ranking officers to whom he and others alluded, is now under consideration, and I ask him not to press me tonight. I ask him to accept the general spirit in which I have endeavoured to deal with the question of how, in particular circumstances, these people are to be dealt with, as an indication of what we are trying to do.

Mr. Nicholson: The Subsection says that the Unemployment Assistance Board may do certain things, and specifies the categories of people for whom they may do them. I suggest that the categories ought to be put into a separate Clause. They are referred to in Clauses 3, 4, 6, and 7, by reference back to those persons for whom the Board have power to do certain things.

Mr. Ede: I will look into that point.

Cause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision by the Assistance Board of accommodation in camps.)

10.45 P.m.

The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed together the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and her hon. Friends, in page 4, line 37, after "other," to insert, "British."; the two Amendments—also in the name of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends—to make the same insertion in Clauses 4 and 6; and that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and his hon. Friend, in Clause 3, page 4, line 46, at the end, to insert "or to deportation."

Mrs. Manning: May I ask your advice, Major Milner, because the other Amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends are Amendments to Clauses 4 and 6? Are you ruling that since the Clauses hang together we may discuss the three Amendments now?

Mr. Piratin: I accept your Ruling, of course, Major Milner, but I would point

out that the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend and myself has an entirely different significance from those standing in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and her hon. Friends. If you rule that the three may be discussed together, may I take it that you will put our Amendment separately?

The Chairman: I think it would be permissible to discuss them together.

Mrs. Manning: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after "other," to insert "British."
I am grateful for your Ruling, Major Milner, that we may discuss at the same time the Amendments to make the same change in Clauses 4 and 6 because all three Clauses follow the same pattern. The intention of the Clauses concerned is to enable the Assistance Board to make arrangements with any Government Department for certain purposes, the Departments in question being the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. That is something we accept because we realise that the Assistance Board must be able to make these arrangements with Government Departments to have the work carried out. The point about which we feel some anxiety is that which arises from the provision which occurs in each of these Clauses and which says that the Board may make arrangements with any Government Department or other authority or person. We are a little anxious as to who the other authorities or persons may be. Are they, for example, persons connected with General Anders' army, or are they persons connected with the old Polish Government? If so, I feel—and I hope hon. Members opposite will feel—that in making my submission to the Committee I am doing so as much out of regard for the Poles concerned as for any other reason. I feel very strongly that the other persons or other authorities should be British persons and authorities, and it is for that reason that I am seeking to introduce this word "British." My main reason in bringing forward this Amendment is that we have a very strong feeling that if the Poles who remain in this country are really to be absorbed into the general life of the country, and if they are really to learn something about the British way of life, then the sooner they come under British in-


fluences the better, and the shorter the period in which they remain under the influences of the émigré Government or their followers or employees—

Professor Savory: I would implore the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) not to use the word "émigré." If she knew its significance or understood its connotations she would not. In French it is equivalent to the word "deserter."

Mrs. Manning: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he must know very well that I am not using the word in any offensive sense whatever; indeed, I wanted to use it in order really to explain my point. I have had a great deal to do with people who have lived in this country and who are, shall I say "refugees"

Professor Savory: Yes, or use the word "emigrant" if you like.

Mrs. Manning: I have a great deal of respect at times for the hon. Member for the Queen's University (Professor Savory), if not on the question of Poland, at least on other subjects—but I prefer to make my own speech and must insist on my right to do so. What I really want to say is that anyone who had anything to do during the war years with the refugees or the people who are living out of their own country knows that there is such a thing as an émigré mentally which is very difficult to combat. These are people who live partly on their memories of the past and partly on their hopes for the future, and who find it very difficult to get a stable existence in the present. We do not want the Poles who are in this country under this scheme to be in that situation. We want those who are going to stay behind to be absorbed into the life and stream of the country, and to absorb the British way of life and become one of us. If they are to stay, we want them to become in the end English people.
For that reason, the sooner they come under English influences the better. I wish to exemplify what I have to say by reference to Clause 6 and the question of education. I have had a great deal of experience in this matter. I once had the pleasure—it was rather an onerous pleasure—of bringing 4,000 Basque children to this country. I had a great deal to do with deciding about their education,

and I found that the children who went to the village schools and technical colleges of the country, and later to the universities, became practically English in thought and outlook, and spoke excellent English.
We are doing a very bad thing for these Polish children, whatever may be the position with regard to the young men and the adults, in giving them schools of their own. I should like to see the school for officers' children at Pitlochry liquidated and the girls sent into our secondary schools, just as so many of the Jewish immigrants and Basque children went. Those children learnt English very quickly. The language difficulty does not exist for a child. Every child is bilingual. If very young children were taught French with French children, they would learn it much quicker than they do in the secondary schools.
If we are to do the best for these young people—I say nothing of the older ones—as far as education is concerned, they should attend British institutions and come under the influence of the British tradition. The Minister of Education is here, and I am certain he will say that our schools are already overcrowded and short of teachers. But these children have to be put somewhere. If we have to supply huts and country houses for them, why should they not mix with our children? It is as broad as it is long. The quicker we can get rid of that emigré mentality, the better will be the lives they will lead here.
Hon. Members know that I do not want too many of these Poles to stay here, although I believe it would be to our advantage to have their labour, for I believe it means a great enrichment to the life of the country to have foreigners here, and we want as many additions as possible to our manpower. I have recently been in Poland, where I realised that Poland wants her sons back, too, as she has a great deal of reconstruction to do. If we follow the course I have advocated, these Poles will go back to Poland enriched, taking back something of the knowledge of the British way of life. I am sure that hon. Members opposite would be very glad of that. Whether these people go or stay, this is the best way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel prepared to accept my Amendment.

Wing-Commander Millington: I want to tackle this question from a slightly differ-


ent point of view from that of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). When we put this Amendment down we had in the back of our minds what back benchers of the Labour Party always have in mind —to help the Government in every way possible. The only question I want to ask is whether the adjective "British" has not been inadvertently left out in drafting this Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman say that he is not going to accept the Amendment, then we want to know what other authorities he has in mind other than British authorities. We can think of no other authorities who can work with the Assistance Board, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health in administering the normal services to the Poles. I feel that we would strongly resist other authorities being brought into consultation if those authorities were the Polish authorities in this country. In particular, we would very much like to know whether those other authorities am the officers of the Polish Army in this country, or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has in mind having assistance from the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) in administering this Clause.

Mr. Ede: He is British.

Mr. H. Hynd: During the Second Reading discussion what seemed to me to be a fundamental construction all the way through the speech of the Home Secretary, which was full of admirable sentiments, was the necessity for assimilating the Poles, who decided to remain in this country, into the British way of life. Yet side by side with that we were told all the way through about the special Polish classes, the special Polish hospitals and the special Polish camps that are to be set up. It seems to me that that is just not the way to assimilate the Poles into the British way of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said, the sooner they develop British ideas if they are going to stay here, the better for them. I would suggest, for example, that if we are to have separate Polish schools set up that is not to the advantage of the Poles. If they graduate through a Polish college and get a certificate to that effect, I suggest that that certificate would not be so useful to them as a certificate from a British university would be.
11.0 p.m.
Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will tell us that, although he may find it necessary to engage certain Polish instructors in some of the educational institutions, or some Polish doctors in some of the medical institutions, we shall not segregate the Poles into separate institutions, separate communities, and keep them together in an organised body of any kind. Frankly, I am suspicious of it. I might as well be quite frank about it. I believe that efforts are being made to keep those Poles together as far as possible and as long as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not want to enter into that; I might be out of Order if I did; but I want to support the Home Secretary's idea of assimilating them as quickly as possible into the British way of life. For that reason I suggest it is essential that these educational institutions, hospitals and camps, must be under British control.

Mr. Paget: I do not want to disagree with what seemed to me to be the entirely admirable speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), but there is one case which I have in mind that I do not think would quite fit in with this Amendment. There is in this country at the moment a very distinguished Polish artist. He has an art school in this country. The Polish Government in Warsaw have made arrangements to send over some Polish Jews to study painting in England with the idea that they should mix and meet with Poles in England also studying at that school and begin something in the nature of a cultural link. If that is a first symptom, a beginning of a new age, it seems to me to be an altogether admirable one, and I do not think we should exclude that school from the educational organisations which we have in mind in Clause 6. It is perhaps rather a small case, but one often has to be very careful what words are introduced as Amendments into Statutes, as they may exclude just the very sort of things one does not want to exclude.

Mr. Ede: I intend to deal with all three Amendments together, and most of the observations I shall have to offer can he applied to each of them. The phrases in these Clauses are common form when a Government Department proposes to delegate some of its authority to some subordinate authority or to some person.


For instance, in the circumstances of this Bill, we shall want to delegate some of the powers that we give the Minister to local authorities. Unless we do that, if we leave these people to the general law of the land, we might find, for instance, that the Polish children in a particular camp who were being sent to the local school would be chargeable to the ratepayers of that district. Now we are taking steps whereby dealing with these people will be a national and not a local charge. Therefore, unless we are to establish the kind of schools that the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) has asked us not to establish, we must take powers whereby the Minister shall be the person who will have to provide the funds and not the local authorities.
The same thing applies, of course, to the other Government Departments, and I am sure that none of us would wish to have the difficulty that would arise if we were to make these persons chargeable to the district in which, for the bad luck of the district for this particular purpose, they happen to be situated. When it comes to the question of persons, we may want to employ medical practitioners direct; we may want to give them some of the powers that the Minister takes, and the same with regard to the corporations. We hope, for instance, to use the National Hostels Corporation to house a number of these people.
It is true that I have said throughout the discussions on this Bill that I am exceedingly anxious to get these people assimilated to the British way of life, and to do it as speedily as possible, but let us recognise that we cannot at the moment break these people up and send them as individuals throughout the country. It must be a continuing process—I hope a rapidly continuing process—whereby, starting off with large blocks of them at the moment, we shall endeavour to pass them through the Resettlement Corps out into industry or, as far as the children are concerned, to get them steadily spread about in the country in exactly the circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping has alluded. I want as soon as possible to see all these children in English or Scottish schools, taking part in the ordinary life of the schools, in the same way as she described her Basque children had done when she was

responsible for their oversight. That is what we are aiming at, but at the moment we have to deal with these people in masses; and at that stage we may have to employ, under British authority, certain individual Poles who will be necessary for the appropriate running of these institutions.

Mr. Warbey: The common form of the wording is that the board, or whatever it may be,
may make arrangements with any … authority or person.
If one employs somebody, one does not make arrangements with him. One employs him.

Mr. Ede: When I was employed, I always hoped that a satisfactory arrangement had been made about my salary.

Mr. Warbey: One enters into a contract of service.

Mr. Ede: A contract of service is an arrangement. There may be some people with whom we do not want to enter into a contract of service and whom we do not want to employ as salaried servants, who may be persons of means who are willing to make arrangements with us to carry out what we want done without accepting any payment. I should have thought the words "make arrangements" would cover both the voluntary and the salaried worker. If we were to limit ourselves to the word "British" we should unnecessarily circumscribe ourselves. With the assurance that all these services are to be undertaken under British authority, with the determined effort—as I said with regard to the technical college which we propose to establish—to bring these people into an institution which will have, from the first, a British emphasis and in which that British emphasis will increase from time to time, I hope the Committee will feel that that is the appropriate way in which we should deal with this matter.
When it comes to the question of students, at the moment there are in the Polish educational centres in London 1,350 students. Everyone connected with the education service of the country knows that we have at the moment passing through our universities and technological colleges a very large number of ex-Servicemen whom it is desirable to pass through as quickly as possible. If


we are to put these 1,350 people into a British institution straightaway, we can only do so by denying opportunities to British subjects, in the main ex-Service men and women, who are urgently in need of this education so that they can start up in life. We have therefore decided to appoint—in fact a person has been appointed—a British principal. In the first note supplied to me on this Clause, the word "English" was inserted. I inquired what was the gentleman's name. It began with "Mac." Therefore hon. Members may rest assured that the description properly is British. There will have to be, at first, in all these institutions, a number of persons who are fluent speakers of Polish. It is true, as the hon. Lady said with regard to children in nursery schools, that they are bilingual. No one who saw the evacuation of London children to Wales need have any doubt about that. They were generally the most proficient Welsh scholars in the schools there. Although children are bilingual, adults find some difficulty it understanding a language with which they have no previous acquaintance. Those are the people with whom we are exceedingly anxious to deal quickly.
I do not think that the insertion of these words would do other than hamper the Government in their efforts to get these people quickly assimilated into the British way of life. I want to repeat what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, that is, that we are determined that no arrangements under this Bill are to be used as preserving a spearhead for any march against the present Government of Warsaw. We are determined that those people who desire to remain in this country must do so on the understanding that they are to be assimilated into the British way of life as soon as possible; and in the case of the three Services with which we are dealing in this amendment, we can do that most effectively if our hands are not tied in the way the Amendments would tie them.

Professor Savory: I should like strongly to support the arguments of the Home Secretary, because they are broadminded and liberal. We must remember that here in England we have had, at Oxford, a distinguished legal faculty, and a distinguished medical faculty in Scotland. These have rendered great service, in

view of the great difficulty of the language. We must always recollect that in Poland the second language taught in the schools was not English, but French. To those distinguished Poles whom I meet in this country I never speak English, but always French, because I want to be polite and courteous, and to make myself understood. It would be a very narrow view to insist that in the schools all the teaching should be in English, which the pupils would not be able to understand. I would like to warn hon. Members with regard to this question, because I was in German Poland after Bismarck had introduced those terrible regulations under which Polish children were to be taught by German teachers. Even the priest was forbidden to go into the parish school and give religious instruction in Polish. Everything was in German. What happened in those schools? The children were learning absolutely nothing.
Let us take a broad and liberal view of this question, and let us recollect that Polish culture is something which we ought also to preserve. Let us remember that the Polish literature is one of the most marvellous in the whole world—

Mr. Gallacher: Then preserve it in Poland.

Professor Savory: Let us remember that Polish literature is one of the most marvellous in the whole world, and that it will be a sorry thing if the Poles in this country forget their own beautiful literature. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady just now, but I would implore hon. Members not to use the offensive word "émigré." I am sure that no one would intentionally wound the feelings of our Polish Allies. I accept the word "refugees." The Huguenots, in the Seventeenth century, were refugees. But the word "émigré " has a very definite connotation. It means the French aristocrats who abandoned their king to his fate, who were deserters, and in no sense can one apply that word to any Pole in this country. I do beg hon. Members not to employ this Communistic jargon.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Mack: I am very conscious of the fact that the patience of all right hon. and hon. Members is running out, but I think that


a word ought to be said with regard to the remarks by the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory). He is a very nice, but a very naughty man to listen to the remarks which have been pumped into his ears perhaps by people all too willing to take advantage of his generosity and willingness. But I will not go into that—I am very much concerned with something else. These Poles who wish to remain in Britain should recognise that the British way of life, of which we have heard so much in tile Debates on this Bill, is, in so far as it is a democratic way of life, the first thing they should try to learn. Yet I cannot see how they will be able to learn that if they are to be directed in these camps and hostels by some of their erstwhile officers, the heel-clicking type of officer who is unconscious of true democracy.
Let us call a spade a spade. What I have just said is quite true, and these people have, largely been responsible for preventing many Polish soldiers from going back to Poland. I accept the Home Secretary's words. There should be supervision for any crimes committed in these hostels, and I hope that those hon. Members who have put down an Amendment on this Clause will accept it in that sense. But we will watch developments so that these Polish officers do not take advantage of the position. The concluding words of the Home Secretary a few minutes ago were that no arrangements under this Bill are to be used as preserving a spearhead for any march against the present Government of Warsaw, and I hope that these words will be borne in mind by every Member.

Major Braman: I am sorry to take up further time, but I took notes of the assurance given by the Home Secretary that he had no intention that these people should be used as a spearhead in any march against Warsaw. What my hon. Friends associated with this Amendment are afraid of is that, by not putting in the word we propose should be put in, we are putting into the hands of people certain things, and those people may not have intentions as honourable as we would wish. The Home Secretary did not show why this word should not go in, and with all respect to hon. Members who have touched on this point, the word has nothing to do with the language in which Polish children—or adults—are to be

taught. I suggest that that is absolutely beside the issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the nationality of the teachers in Polish schools or universities. I am certain that these words were not put into the Bill with the idea that the persons with whom Government Departments would make arrangements would be on the level of teachers in schools and professors in universities. The words of the Home Secretary did not give any colour to that suggestion. He spoke of local education authorities, national hostels corporations, and bodies of that type. When he spoke of persons I think he meant the chief officials, the clerks, of local education authorities, and so forth. Surely, we are not dealing with individual employees when we talk about a Government Department making arrangements.
All the people my right hon. Friend mentioned would be covered by British authorities and persons. Frankly, I am afraid that authority will be delegated to some of the people who are, at the moment, a section of the Interim Treasury Committee. The Home Secretary, on the Second Reading, pointed out that the chief representative of that Committee is Count Racynski, a former Polish Ambassador in London. This Committee is divided into various sections, which cover various types of activity. I fear that unless we put in the word British,"authority will be delegated to a body which consists of members, or partly members, of the Interim Committee. I hope the Home Secretary will reassure us about this matter.

Mr. Ede: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) makes it clear that I cannot give the pledge which has been asked for. My hon. Friend suggested that it would be desirable, in the management of a Polish technical college, that the governing body should consist partly of British people and partly of Poles. I should have thought that in the circumstances that was an eminently reasonable suggestion.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I hope that the Poles who are selected for this governing body will be selected by my right hon. Friend, on his own responsibility.

Mr. Ede: No, I am not taking that on. They will be selected by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education—

Mrs. Manning: The same thing.

Mr. Ede: I am not the same person as the Minister of Education. It is not our intention to have, on this governing body, people who are proved to be acting in the spirit that has been suggested. It is not our intention to keep alive the idea that we are keeping the anti-Warsaw Government Poles in existence and in good heart in this country. If we discovered that any person who had been appointed, or given a position of authority or influence in the organisation that we set up, was using that authority or influence in that direction we should remove from him the opportunity for using that authority or influence.
We could not, I repeat, run the Corps or make the arrangements for the servicing of the Poles in this country efficiently if we were to he limited by the insertion of this word. What we do intend to do is to make quite certain that the ultimate responsibility in every case will be that of a Minister answerable to this House, and one of the pledges I am authorised to give by all the right hon. Gentlemen concerned is that they intend to use these services, where any influence is available at all, to ensure that the existence of a group of these Polish people—as a group—shall be broken up at the earliest possible moment. When it comes to doctors, nurses and similar people, we may desire to employ, for instance, a Sort of district nurse in some area where there are a number of Poles, and it may be desirable that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health should make that arrangement direct with the particular person. It may very well be that a suitable Polish woman should be the person so employed, and to insert this word in the Bill would prevent us from taking that very reasonable step.
I do ask my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and my other hon. Friends who are associated with this Amendment, suspicious as they may be of certain Poles, not to extend their suspicions to my right hon. Friends the Ministers who will be engaged in carrying out the three Clauses under discussion. I do not ask them to place any trust in me because I. am not concerned with carrying out those provisions, but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education, the Minister of National Insurance and the Minister of Health, would, I should have thought—

even though they do happen to be associated with me in the Government—be above suspicion on personal qualifications.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the assurances which the Minister has given, I do not want to keep the Committee very long, but I think we ought to bear in mind that, as we are dealing with a body of Polish citizens, the way we deal with them must inevitably affect not only ourselves but also our relations with the people and the Government of Poland. Therefore we ought to be careful to see that, as far as possible in what we do, and in the wording of this Bill, we help to foster those good relations. That Government are well aware of the fact that there is in this country at the moment a body of Poles claiming to be a pseudo Government, actually running a Cabinet swearing allegiance to the ex-President, having Cabinet reshuffles, discussing business, and so on. The fear in the minds of the Polish Government and of our friends in Poland is, I am sure, that under cover of this Clause that pseudo Government may continue their existence. It is not merely a question, as the Home Secretary said, of building up for the march on Warsaw, but a question of a cover under which a pseudo Government retain their existence in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that it is our intention to break up this pseudo Government at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Ede: But I do not do that under any of the three Clauses which have been discussed. The pseudo Government, as my hon. Friend calls it, are not recognised by this Government. We recognise the Warsaw Government and no other as being the legitimate Government of Poland. The three Clauses in question cannot be used in any way, as far as I know, to help any other Government that may claim to be a Polish Government and that is resident in this country.

Mrs. Manning: In view of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, after "establishments", to insert:
excluding private homes under which any billeting arrangements may be made.


Before I come to the Amendment may I say, in answer to the self-deprecating remarks of the Home Secretary on the last Amendment, that he commends our respect and confidence as much as anyone he referred to. It is in that spirit that I put forward this Amendment. Had I been fortunate on the Second Reading in catching Mr. Speaker's eye I would have attempted to put forward my ideas on the word "establishments" because it seems ambiguous. As I was unsuccessful during the Second Reading I have had recourse to the dictionary, and I have been able to fortify myself as to the word "establishments." If "establishments" means some organisation under an authority in line with camps or hostels there would be no question of this Amendment. On reference to Chambers Dictionary, however, I find that "establishments" can mean one's residence and style of living, while in Murray's Dictionary it can also mean a householder or family residence.
In Clause 1 (3) we find there is tremendous scope regarding the persons referred to. That scope is illustrated in Clause 2 (2) and it refers, in fact, to almost every type of Pole who has been in this country since 1939 and who is over r6. It is my contention, therefore, that whether the Government wish it or not, ultimately some of these people, in the process of resettlement or in the process of transition from the Resettlement Corps to civilian life, will find themselves billeted or accommodated in private houses. That seems to be fortified by the statement contained in Clause 3 (2) which reads, referring to the Assistance Board, that it
may make such provision in such manner as appears to them most convenient whether by themselves providing goods or services, by making payments to others for the provision thereof ….
I am wondering whether "other persons" in fact means householders and individuals in private residence; and it seems to be borne out further by Subsection (3) where
The Board may make arrangements with any Government department or other authority or person.…
The difficulty is that when one looks at the conjunction of doubt in regard to establishments and their relationship to the word "person" one must ask what is

meant by "person." Again, it may mean the householder. If I may say so, if I am wrong in my submission, and if it is the intention of the Government to accommodate Poles in camps, hostels and other orthodox establishments, it may be a wrong policy on the part of the Government, because, as has been evidenced by the disquiet of my hon. Friends in the previous Amendments, it would be better from every conceivable viewpoint if there were not to be a segregation of Poles rather than have them in these self-contained units in Polish administrative camps, which mean regimentation of a military type. It would be serving a useful purpose when they were ready for assimilation to have billeting arrangements with private householders, and it is in that spirit that I wish the Home Secretary to look at this Amendment.
If I may give an illustration, looking at the point of view of my own constituency, I would say that it contains various industries. Let us assume that certain Poles, who are electrical engineers, are detailed for work at Trafford Park. It is my contention that the Minister in charge of the scheme is not going to make himself responsible for setting up a hostel in Trafford Park for the few Poles going to work there. Obviously billeting may be desirable. If that desirable end comes about, and certain Poles are being sent into the coalmines, perhaps some of them will be sent to Astley in my division to work in the mines there, and again billeting may apply. The same condition in regard to a hostel applies apparently to them. It is my contention that there should be some differentiation if that is likely to transpire, between the rules and regulations and the penalties which I see are in the nature of a fine not exceeding £25 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. I say that that should not apply to private householders because it would restrict the freedom of the householder, and also be a restriction on the freedom of the individual which I am sure is not intended by the Government. I hope, therefore, with these remarks that the Amendment may either be approved or the Home Secretary may give us a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. Ede: The Assistance Board do not intend in any circumstances to billet Polish civilians in private houses, and of course there could not be in any case any question of making rules for the well


ordering of establishments other than those which the Board themselves or their agents are managing. I know some people think that the Government are very daring, but I cannot think that anyone would suspect that we intend to make regulations imposing upon the British housewife the well ordering of their houses.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 46, at the end, to insert "or to deportation."
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not a lawyer, or perhaps I should use the word "jurist." Therefore, I am trying to see what is the penalty that is befitting in such cases as these. The Subsection to which this Amendment refers imposes certain penalties in the case of misdemeanour on the part of Poles My proposition is that we ought to keep in mind what appear to be the present circumstances. As the Home Secretary is aware, for I have written to him on the subject, there are quite a large number of aliens, a number of whom are Poles, in Brixton and other prisons. These people have had only short sentences imposed, such as six months' imprisonment but after that they have been detained because they are subject to deportation. I am not going into the details or circumstances in which they received that imprisonment, and no doubt it was justified. What I am raising is that those who may be given a penalty of, say, three months may also be cases for deportation. I want to deal with that for a moment.
It may be that the Polish Government will not recognise such citizens, but that is a matter for the Polish Government and for us to base our decision accordingly It has been known in the past that sometimes a decision has been taken by a magistrate for deportation but, on the advice of the Secretary of State, it has been changed. There was a case some years ago, with which I had some connection, where a person was recommended to be deported to Germany but, if he had been deported to Germany, the sentence there would have been not three or six months but something much worse. Hence the Secretary of State saw fit to override the decision of the magistrate, this man had to serve a sentence in this country, and then he was let free here. So that if the Polish Government did not desire a certain ex-Pole to be returned to Poland, of

course he should have his sentence changed. All I am asking here, without claiming to be a lawyer, is that the same procedure shall obtain under this Bill for these Poles as obtains at present for Poles or other aliens in this country. If the Home Secretary can give a satisfactory explanation of the position as to why there is this difference, I am prepared to make an adjustment.

Mr. Ede: I must resist this Amendment because it really would arm me with more tremendous powers than my weak spirit is capable of bearing. These are penalties that may be inflicted on any person, and therefore, if a British subject—my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) for instance—went into one of these camps and did something that was regarded as an offence and was convicted, I could then deport him if this Amendment were carried.

Mr. Piratin: Where?

Mr. Ede: I could get him outside the three mile limit and after that the trouble would be his. May I say that I do not need these powers as far as aliens are concerned. I can deport anybody I should have to give a reason to this House for doing so, but no restriction in the Statute is placed on my discretion. It is the exercise of Ministerial discretion, and I am answerable to this House only for the way in which I administer it. Therefore, the proposed words would greatly increase my powers in a very undesirable direction, but would not add to my powers in those directions where it is desirable that I should exercise them, and I am not, therefore, willing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Piratin: In the light of the statement made by the Home Secretary, and in view of the fact that I have added something to my legal knowledge, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Temporary registration of medical practitioners and of pharmacists.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move in page 6, line 47, after "subject," to insert: "to such conditions, and."


The words that we seek to insert here are precisely the same words that appeared in Defence Regulations 32C, on which Clause 5 is based. It is necessary to repeat them here because the bye-laws to be made by the Pharmaceutical Society under the Bill will contain certain points of substance. I am told, for example, that Polish methods of dispensing are different from English methods, and when the byelaws come to be drafted they will provide, among other things, that the pharmacist shall have some practical experience of British methods of dispensing.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: I only intervene for one moment, first to welcome, if I may, the new Parliamentary Secretary in making his debut, and, second, to say that with regard to both this and the next Amendment, I am sure that we are improving the Bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the methods in Poland are different from those in this country. I suspect that English doctors do not write with the same clarity as Polish doctors, and it is desirable that English methods should be studied. We have been paying a lot of compliments to the Poles tonight, but in regard to this matter we have had a practical example of good will to the Poles from the Brighton technical college. Immediately the need for classes for these Polish pharmacists was known, the Brighton education committee made arrangements to run special classes for them. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War can get them out of the armed forces, the classes are waiting in Brighton for them to take. Indeed, we hope to start a class there before Easter, and I would like to pay a tribute to the education committee of Brighton and the principal of the Brighton technical college for showing good will to these Polish pharmacists.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, after the second "to," to insert: "and his skill in dispensing."
This Amendment is very much like the one we have just dealt with. It remedies an omission. As the Clause is drafted, it is limited to theoretical knowledge and says nothing about practical

skill in dispensing. It is felt desirable to put it into the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Law: I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4).
This Clause, as it stands, is very remarkable, and I hope this Amendment will make perhaps less remarkable but more useful. It seems to me to be a remarkable thing that we should have a Clause of this length and then come to a Subsection which limits the operation of the Clause only until 31st December of this year. We are already in February, and it seems to us to be a little odd that the Clause should be limited in time until the end of the present year. Of course, we have had the argument for that limitation. I think the Home Secretary gave it on Second Reading. He said that the defence regulation dealing with this matter expires next December and that is why this Clause also should expire next December. It does not seem to me that that is a very valid argument, because the Defence Regulation deals. I understand with foreign practitioners as a whole. This Bill deals with Polish resettlement, and the fact that we are having this Bill is an indication that we regard the Poles as being in a special position in which we do not regard other foreigners in this country at present. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible to allow, subject to the safeguards in the rest of the Clause, the Poles to practice indefinitely without in any way prejudicing any steps which the Home Secretary may wish to take regarding other foreigners on the expiration of the present Defence Regulations. For these reasons, I hope that the Government may find it possible to accept this Amendment.

Mr. J. Edwards: The purpose of the Amendment is obviously to obviate the termination of the registration at the end of 1947. This registration is deliberately temporary. It is designed to place the individuals concerned in precisely the same position as the other doctors and pharmacists registered under the temporary wartime registration arrangements Under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, the temporary registration comes to an end on 31st December, 1947. At present, the Home Secretary is in consultation with the medical profession on the future of temporarily


registered doctors. There are similar consultations with the Pharmaceutical Society. It is not possible, yet, to make any statement on those discussions, but as temporary registrations are to cease for every other temporarily registered doctor and pharmacist at the end of the year it is, in our view, undesirable to continue it lot the Poles alone. The discussions now taking place may be prejudged by a decision taken on this point. When the matter is receiving comprehensive review it would not really be sensible for us to settle this matter for one section alone hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Linstead: Having some knowledge of the discussions which are going on, I think that any apprehensions arising from the termination of the temporary registration at the end of this year will be found to have little foundation, as the results of these conversations become known. I think ways will be found to continue that registration, perhaps, on a permanent basis. I am anxious—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a little attention to this point—in regard to the pharmacists, about the shortness of time. It had been assumed that a year would provide time for the necessary training courses and examinations, so that we could be quite certain that all these Polish pharmacists had a chance of getting on to the temporary register by the end of the year. But I have a little doubt, now, whether that will be the position. We find, now, that some of them, possibly doctors as well as pharmacists, are in Italy waiting to be brought back to this country. It may be quite late this year before they are back here, and are therefore in a position to take advantage of this Clause. There is also the fact that, although the training courses are being provided at the Brighton Technical College at the earliest possible moment, we find from the War Office that there may be difficulties in releasing these pharmacists so that they can take the courses. I am a little apprehensive whether we will not find ourselves caught up, at the end of this year, with a number of these people who, for reasons outside their own control, are unable to get on to the temporary register. I would ask the Ministers concerned to look at this to see if it is not worth while to extend the period, or to seek power to

extend it. I think it will be agreed that the last thing which we want is to have all these men with the door closed on them, and with a grouse—a justified grouse—for the rest of their lives.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I think that the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee consider this Bill as a valiant attempt to do justice to the Poles who, because of misfortune, are going to spend the majority of their days in this country. This Clause appears to say that the General Medical Council may—it does not say "must"—register these practitioners as foreign practitioners. It puts these Poles on the same basis as foreign practitioners who have come to this country, but I think that the Poles in this case differ. Some of them have taken their degrees in this country, and so they possess a qualifying degree which, if held by a British subject, would make it possible for them to be on the register. Are they "foreign" practitioners because they are foreigners, or because their degree is foreign? If they have a British degree, can they go on registering indefinitely, or it is to be only temporary? If they hold a British degree and in course of time they become naturalised, can they go straight back on the register if the General Medical Council is prepared to register them? It is an important question because a considerable number of them hold British degrees. This Clause says nothing about dentists. Are there no Polish dentists in this country?

The Chairman: I am not sure if the hon. and gallant Member is in Order Clause 4 does not refer to dentists.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I would revert to my previous remarks. This also concerns those who hold foreign degrees in this country and who are practising. If they become naturalised, or take a British degree, can they be registered? I would like to support this Amendment because I think that the Clause is out of keeping with the helpfulness and generosity of the other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak): The Parliamentary Secretary has given certain reasons which are conclusive in favour of this Clause coming to an end at the end of this year. But, under the existing Defence Regulations, these people enjoy the


privileges to be given under this Bill. What is the object of substituting this for the existing Defence Regulations ending at the end of this year? It makes no difference to the present position. There is a Defence Regulation at present, and all that happens is that from the time that this Bill receives the Royal Assent, they will get their rights under this instead of the Defence Regulation
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that Poles should not, under this Bill, be put into a better position than any other alien doctors in this country. I should have thought that if there was anything we could do to help them to become established it would be to give them some security in the future. This is only an enabling Clause. It does not compel the General Medical Council to register anybody; it merely enables them to do so in cases where they are satisfied with the qualification. In view of the fact that the Bill is intended to give facilities for the settlement of Poles in this country, the best thing we could do would be to live them some security in the future.

12 m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted, because it would put Polish doctors in a very much better position than many other alien doctors who fought in the British Army for several years. This matter was carefully considered by the Central Medical War Committee, which put forward a scheme to the British Medical Association which has been accepted by them. It is being put to other medical bodies in the country and will, no doubt, be submitted to the Government. It would be a pity if we gave to Polish doctors a better opportunity than we gave to alien doctors who served this country just as well.

Mr. J. Edwards: In reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), I do not think that it is practicable to consider modifying the Bill to take account of the difficulty to which he referred. The position of people who do not get on to the temporary register in time will be considered with the general question of aliens, after discussions with the professions have been concluded. I do not anticipate any difficulty in dealing with the problem he raised at the same time as we deal with the comprehensive

problem. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) was rather involved. In so far as Polish medical students acquire British medical degrees, there is no difficulty; they can practice. But if they are Polish students with Polish degrees, they can be considered with other alien doctors, even if they do not become members of the Resettlement Corps. There is no difficulty about dentists. There is no provision of the Bill to cover dentists, because there is no difficulty about which we need bother our heads. In reply to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) the register was closed on 24th February, 1946, and it was essential to provide, in the Bill, for the same kind of arrangements. The Defence Regulation arrangements come to an end on 31st December, 1947, and we provide the same thing here, which is the reason for not accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Linstead: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not close his mind entirely to the possibility of changing this date. If he does so after the end of the year it may be possible to bring in Poles. We are not giving the Poles the general preferential treatment which this Bill contemplates for them, and it may very well be that they have to come in eventually by some door which is not yet in existence, let alone open.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Linstead: There are certain classes of Poles to whom this Clause applies, but there is one class—of whom there are possibly very few—who are not provided for here. I refer to those Poles who have been serving in the British Forces. I have in mind only one specific case—a pilot who has served in the R.A.F. and thus does not come into any of the categories of the Polish Forces mentioned in this Clause. I am wondering whether some consideration could be given to that particular type of case, small though the number may be, because I am quite certain that such a man is included within the spirit of this Bill. It would be a pity if a man who had chosen to do his bit fighting in our Forces should be deprived by a technicality of the benefits of this Measure.

Mr. Ede: I have no hesitation in undertaking to give sympathetic consideration to the type of case described by the hon. Member.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provision by the Minister of Education of educational services.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Major Milner, is it not your intention to call the Amendment standing in my name, in Clause 6, page 8, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that all higher education arrangements made under this subsection are to be provided, taking into consideration the needs and facilities of British ex-service students.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Piratin: Then, if I may, I should like to raise the point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We were given figures this afternoon by the Minister of Education which showed that 18,000 British ex-Servicemen had been granted further educational training grants. On another occasion we were told some 4,000 Poles have already been given further education, and that some 2,900 were still being educated. The latest figure we had last week was that 2,000 were receiving higher education. Even at this late hour, any hon. Member of the Committee can make a rapid calculation and discover for himself that 4,000 out of 100,000 compares very favourably indeed with 18,000 out of 5 million. We all know that many British ex-Servicemen feel aggrieved that they have not been given an opportunity for further education—some with justice and some, in view of their particular limitations—with injustice. The fact remains that we have been told time and time again that there is not sufficient accommodation or staff avail- able. It may be said that so far as the Poles are concerned they have enough capable professors and so on to provide their own staffing. That may be so, but it does not account for the accommodation, and we have been told that there is insufficient accommodation at the universities to allow for the further education of all those British ex-Servicemen who desire it.

In view of this, I ask the Minister for an assurance that no Pole who receives education shall do so at the expense of any British ex-Servicemen, and that such accommodation and facilities as exist shall be allotted in a reasonable proportion to the British and the Poles. I ask the right hon. Gentleman also to bear in mind the figures that have been quoted—and which are based on information given by the Minister—showing that whereas only 18,000 British ex-Servicemen have been granted further education out of a total of some 5 million who served, about 4,000 Poles are to be given such education out of a total of roo,000. I think that these are figures which will be received with great interest and perhaps with some concern by British ex-Servicemen when they learn of this contrast. Therefore, the least that the Minister can do is to give us such an assurance and I hope he will do so.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I think the Committee would like to know what are the intentions with regard to the setting up of this Polish University College. As I understand it that proposal is justified on the grounds that at the present time the British universities are full, and, therefore, it is necessary to have some special university college in which to accommodate the Polish students now wishing to undergo technical education. I hope, however, that this is merely a temporary feature of our education, and that the Polish children, who are now in secondary and primary schools, will in the course of time be accommodated in the national universities. I think we would like the Minister to give us some assurance that this Polish college will be of a strictly limited duration.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): In reply to that point, I would say that the time factor is one on which I cannot at this moment say anything definite. However, I look upon this as something of a temporary character, and the sooner the students who pass through can be integrated into the normal life the better. I would point out how difficult it would be to meet the request made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) that no Pole should be taken into our institutions until all the requirements of our ex-Servicemen have been met. While the figures which the hon. Member has


given as contrasted with numbers of our ex-servicemen, would seem impressive, I must not only point out that the figures are wrong but object to the way he has put them, because as presented, they throw a reflection upon what we are here attempting to do. It seems to me that all this Clause as it stands does is to place the Ministry of Education in a position to carry out on behalf of the Minister what hitherto would have been carried out by the local education authority. Because of that fact it has set up a special machine for the purpose. It is my intention, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to appoint a committee to work out all the points brought to notice by hon. Members, but in carrying out our duty, we do not intend to imperil the opportunities which are being offered to our own ex-Servicemen.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Law: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The hour is getting late It is after midnight and well past our normal hour of Adjournment. We are using a lot of electric light and I understand that that is a scarce and valuable commodity at the present time. I think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will agree that we have made progress with the Committee stage of the Bill. The progress made may not be as rapid as he would like, but I think he will acquit both this side of the Committee and his own followers of any disposition to slow up the passage of the Bill. I suggest that the Minister should now allow us to go home. It would be to the convenience of every Member of the Committee, and I do not think that it would effectively delay the passage of this Bill at all, because I think that from the way the Committee stage has been conducted to-night it is clear that the Committee are as anxious as the Minister to secure its passage. That indicates that if we take the remainder of the Committee stage on another occasion we should be able to dispose of it rapidly. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that, at this advanced hour we can now go home.

Mr. Ede: I am thankful to the Committee for the way in which the discussion on the Bill has been conducted, but I must ask hon. Members to conclude the Committee stage to-night. I hope that an announcement which I hope to be able to make later on what might otherwise prove a contentious part of the Bill, will help us to conclude our work. Until we get to the new Clause in my name there is not any matter of substance left. I hope that the answer I shall be able to make when we reach that new Clause will enable the Committee to report Progress at a not very distant hour.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to service in the forces.)

Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 9. line 7, after "forces," to insert:
during a period not exceeding two year, from the passing of this Act.
The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the application of the first part of the Clause to a period not exceeding two years from the passing of the Bill. Hon. Members will be aware of the fact that a Section of the Army Act does restrict to one in 5o the number of aliens who can be employed in the British forces at any one time. I fear that the Polish Resettlement Corps and its ancillary bodies are in excess of that number, being, in fact, too per cent. Polish, and, therefore, if the Polish Resettlement Corps and other bodies under the general heading of the Polish Resettlement Force are to remain in being as a legal force, it is necessary to waive that Section of the Army and the Air Force Act, in respect to the Polish Resettlement Force. It has, however, been quite definitely stated by the Home Secretary and, I think, by other responsible Ministers, that this Polish Resettlement Corps, although technically a military unit within the British Armed Forces, in its character is not essentially military; that its character is substantially civilian in that it is a preparation of these Poles for civilian life; that, to the greatest possible extent, it is a demilitarised unit; and that, in fact, the only purpose for which it is retained within the British Armed Forces and under the control of the War Office and Air Force at all is in order to ensure. that its members shall be


subject to British military discipline. That, I understand, is the sole purpose aimed at, and there is no intention whatsoever that this Corps shall constitute anything like a foreign legion.
If that is so, then surely it is highly desirable that this Corps shall be terminated as soon as its functions have been completed, and that there is no possibility in the form of this Bill, when it is finally passed into law, that the Corps can continue as a distinct Corps within the British Army. We have been told that it is generally understood that the Polish Resettlement Corps shall complete its functions within a period of two years, and that within that time it is hoped the Poles will have been trained for, and translated into, civilian life and absorbed into our community. If, at the end of two years, there are a few individuals still remaining for whom a place has not been found, then it will not be necessary to retain military discipline for them, because they can be dealt with in other ways. The Corps will, in fact, be substantially liquidated within that period. Therefore, I hope that we shall he told by whoever replies that it is possible to accept this Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): I have no wish to treat the Committee with discourtesy, but I think it might be for the general convenience if I said straight away that we are not willing to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved, and to explain why. His argument was that this Corps is a civilian Corps in character, for all practical purposes, that it ought to be wound up as quickly as possible, that two years seems to be a reasonable time to expect it to last, and that if anybody were left at the end of two years, they would not matter very much,
It is our hope that within two years we shall have completed the business of this Polish Resettlement Corps and that it will have finished its natural function and passed out of existence. It is obviously possible that that may not be so, and that there may be a certain number of people still left in it at the end of two years. I want to make it perfectly plain to the Committee that there is no conspiracy or hidden hand in this at all, but these matters are affected by a good many imponderables; for instance,

the absorption into civilian life and civilian industry of a large body of men of this kind would probably be affected by such a crisis as we have been passing through in the last two or three weeks, and for a great variety of reasons it is quite unacceptable to be tied down in statutory form to a fixed period after which it would not be legitimate to continue the existence of this Corps.
I will give an assurance to the Committee on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government that there is every intention of winding this up as quickly as it can be done, but we cannot be tied in statutory form like this, and it is an invalid argument to say that if there are only a few people left, it does not matter what happens to them, because it may well be that the last members of this Resettlement Corps to be disbanded will be the cadre staff who have been administering the Corps, and who have complicated financial and legal provisions to tidy up before they can go, and who would have to remain in military conditions and subject to the same laws and regulations under which they have been serving all along to carry out that task. Therefore, with those arguments and with the assurance which I readily give, I trust the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Warbey: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider the possibility, at least, of inserting some time limit. I felt his argument was not very convincing because a good many of us had taken the view that this matter could have been dealt with in another way, and that there would have been a possibility of placing this Corps under civilian control long ago, for example, under the control of the Ministry of Labour. I am not at all sure that the kind of control that these men have been under in the past, under some of their own officers, has maintained a very high standard of discipline. From reports that I have seen from the Italian Government, of their behaviour in Italy, for example, they had not a very high record of discipline.

Mr. Stokes: That is not true.

Mr. Warbey: My hon. Friend is, no doubt, fully acquainted with these things—

Mr. Stokes: I am.

Mr. Warbey: —but I may say that I have seen a record prepared by the Italian Government and submitted to the Italian Control Commission, giving a very long list of offences of ill-discipline committed by members of these Forces.

Mr. Stokes: Submitted by whom?

Mr. Warbey: I do not wish to transgress the rules of Order, but, since I have been challenged on this point, I would say that I can show my hon. Friend a copy of this document. To come back to the point which we are discussing, some of us take the view that it is not necessary to deal with the matter in this way. If it is necessary to deal with a large body of men—with 80,000 or 90,000 men—in this way, surely, at the end of two years it could have been possible so to adapt these men to the British way of life that it is not necessary, for the sake of an odd few thousand who may remain, to retain them under military discipline in this country. Therefore, I submit that this time limit would not impose any undue restriction but, on the other hand, it would remove any possible misunderstanding there may be, and that under this Clause, particularly in the first part of it, we are seeking to establish what is, in effect, a, kind of foreign legion within the British Forces.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. J. Freeman: I beg to move, in page 9, line 13, to leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 15, and to insert:
Polish resettlement forces.
Before this Bill was presented to the House, a number of hon. Members were good enough to discuss with us what might be the effect of these provisions, and we felt at that time that Clause 8 was not drafted as well as it might be in one respect.

Professor Savory: Hear, hear.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Freeman: I trust the hon. Member will remain in agreement as we proceed. We are anxious to make it perfectly plain that the object of this Resettlement Corps is to fit people for civilian life, and that in no circumstances are we seeking to recruit a foreign legion. It has occurred to us that, as originally drafted, it might appear that people can be taken from the "rump," the Poles who have not yet decided to go into the Resettlement Corps, and recruited into the British

Army. If that were so, a suggestion might be 1evelled at us that we were not very serious about accepting these Poles in the British Army on equal terms with Englishmen. In order to remove any misunderstanding of that kind we are by this Amendment, in effect, giving an undertaking by which we shall be bound that we will not accept Polish recruits into the British Army, until they have passed through the Polish Resettlement Corps.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major BRAMALL:

In page 9, line 15, leave out "be disregarded," and insert:
apply as though 'for the word 'fifty,' there were substituted the word 'five,' provided always that the total number of Poles so serving in corps or units of the Army and Royal Air Force other than in any of the Polish resettlement forces shall not exceed five thousand.

Major Bramall: In view of the assurance given by the Financial Secretary, that there is no intention to form a foreign legion, and that that point will be borne in mind in all transactions with regard to the Poles, I do not wish to press my Amendment.

The Chairman.: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Major Bramall: I do not wish to move it.

Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after "officer," to insert:
other than in any of the Polish resettlement forces.
The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the possibility of giving the rank of commissioned officer to a Pole serving in the Polish Resettlement Forces. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I have already used in relation to the previous Amendment, but merely to emphasise again that this Corps is essentially a preparation for civilian life, and particularly for absorption into the British way of life. Therefore, in these conditions it is clearly desirable that there should be the least amount of militarisation among the Poles themselves, and particularly that the Polish soldiers in this Resettlement Corps should not be subjected to the kind of control which they have experienced in the past from a


number of senior Polish officers who, although it may not suit the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory), were of a reactionary character and were definitely, and are still, entirely hostile to the Polish Government in Warsaw, and to good relations between this country and that Government. I do not wish to weary the Committee with quotations from some of the utterances which have been made by these people. I have a sheaf here of the kind of thoroughly reactionary anti-Socialist and pro-Fascist statements which have been made by these gentlemen.

Mr. Stokes: Anti-Communist.

Mr. Warbey: Anti-Socialist and pro-Fascist, I said. I am not concerned with whether they are anti-Communist.

Mr. Stokes: Moscow, please note.

Mr. Warbey: It does interest me that these statements are anti-Socialist and hostile to the Polish Government which we recognise. These people are not democrats in spirit, and are therefore not the right kind of people to exercise control over men who are being trained in the British democratic way of life. Therefore, I suggest that it will be for the benefit of the future conduct of this Corps if the officers in control are Polish non-commissioned officers, subject to the higher discipline of a small number of British commissioned officers. That is quite sufficient for the military discipline required for this Corps. There is no need, we have been told, for any great amount, but this would guarantee that these men are trained in a democratic way, which they have not been in the past year or so.

Mr. Gallacher: I did not intend to intervene at this stage, but since the hon. Member keeps repeating certain remarks, I think it is necessary to say something in reply. I know all about this. There are large numbers of Polish soldiers in Scotland, and for vile, vicious Fascism, one cannot beat the Polish officers in Scotland. Their whole attitude is just that. They are swaggering, and they are all-important—

Mr. Stokes: One gets that in Whitehall.

Mr. Gallacher: I am talking about the Polish officers, and as a matter of fact it

is well known that these very people, before they came from Poland, would have imposed imprisonment on anybody who knocked against a Polish uniform. They have been known to shoot civilians, and here they are—

Professor Savory: The hon. Member is thinking of German officers.

Mr. Gallacher: I am talking of my own country. I know what happens there. We have them in Scotland, and they would never think of giving any encouragement at all to democracy. If this Polish Resettlement Corps is to be used for absorbing people into the industrial life of this country, it should not depend on Polish officers, but on democratic organisations within the Resettlement Corps. I want to tell the Committee that these Polish officers are very dangerous from the point of view of democracy.

Mr. J. Freeman: It is perfectly clear that any arguments which I might address to the Committee will have no effect in silencing my hon. Friend (Mr Stokes). There are a variety of reasons why I would ask the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) to withdraw this Amendment. The first is that it is not, I am told, acceptable from a legal point of view, and, furthermore, if we were anxious to do what he says he is anxious to do, I am assured that this would not be the way to do it. My hon. Friend is anxious to demilitarise this Corps, and he says that we should prevent any Polish commissioned officer from belonging to it. I cannot see how that is going to have the effect he wants Are these Polish officers to be accepted into the Corps and brought down to the rank of n.c.o. and private? If that is in his mind, does he think it is likely that they will want to volunteer to come into the Resettlement Corps? Or does he not want them to get into the Resettlement Corps?

The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me hear what he is saying?

Mr. Freeman: I beg your pardon, Major Milner. I am flattered by your interest.

Mr. Warbey: The Financial Secretary says, "Do I want these officers brought in, and invited to accept the rank of sergeant or private?" I thought that the object of the Corps was to fit them for civil life. Is not that its purpose?

Mr. Freeman: Nevertheless, we are faced with the problem of very large numbers of Polish military personnel of all ranks, drawing the benefits of those ranks, and we are inviting them to volunteer for the Resettlement Corps. It will not be a very hopeful prospect if we start by saying that anybody who has earned high rank during his war service must start by coming down to the rank of lance corporal. That is one of the effects of the proposed Amendment. If my hon. Friend does not want these officers to come into the Corps then all that has been said about the democratisation of these people, and fitting them for civil life, falls to the ground. If these people are Fascists—which I do not accept for one moment—surely it is desirable that they should he brought into this Corps, and be susceptible to the control and direction which the Corps is designed to give.
Further, I suggest that we cannot reopen now the question of the military organisation of these people. There are two views about this, and the House has had many months in which to think over this problem. I have no doubt that the vast majority of. people have come to the conclusion that this method of using the Resettlement Corps as a military transit camp, in order to fit these Poles for civil life in this country, is the best method. I earnestly ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he will not withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) considers whether he will, or will not, withdraw his Amendment, I cannot resist the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I am amazed that he should protest on grounds of democracy, because he represents a philosophy which is a complete denial of democracy—

The Chairman: We cannot go into a discussion about the respective merits of different philosophies.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for me, Major Milner, to invite the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to discuss democracy with me in Ipswich, any time he likes?

Mr. Stokes: Any time the hon. Member likes to come to Ipswich I shall he delighted to meet him.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member has never been there when I have been there.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Stokes: That is because the hon. Member has never done me the courtesy of telling me that he was corning. That, of course, is not the least surprising, given his performances in this House. With regard to these swanky journalists and the rest, surely the idea that we should take note of the example set from the East—

Mr. Gallaeher: The South-East.

Mr. Stokes: No, the East. As I was saying, the idea that we ought to pay more attention to the example set us by Marshal Zhukov, who considers a battledress as ridiculous and dresses himself up in a great panoply—

The Chairman: That is irrelevant to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Stokes: That was the argument used by my hon. Friend and I wanted to show what awful humbug it was. Having said that, I am prepared to sit down.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 21, leave out from "the," to "who," in line 23, and insert "Polish resettlement forces."—[Mr. J. Freeman.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Professor Savory: I share the opinion of the Financial Secretary to the War Office—

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Do you intend to call the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend and myself, in page 9, line 4, to leave out Clause 8?

The Chairman: That is not an Amendment in the proper sense. It is unnecessary to move to leave out a whole Clause. If the hon. Member desires to do so he may raise his point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Professor Savory: I fully share the opinion of the Minister as to the obscurity of this whole Clause. I have read it many times and have received innumerable letters from my Polish friends asking me for an explanation of the meaning of certain passages


in it. I have not been able to give them a satisfactory answer. I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but there is one important point in this connection. A commander in the Polish Navy came to see me on Saturday as a deputation from his colleagues and put various questions to me which I asked should be put in writing. I find it very difficult to understand why the Navy is omitted from Subsection (1) and only the Army and the Royal Air Force mentioned, whereas in Subsection (2) the Navy is mentioned. Perhaps I may read the question to which the Polish officer desires an answer? He says:
The Bill provides in Clause 8, Subsection (1) for the service of Poles in the British Army and the Royal Air Force, but nothing is said about the Royal Navy. Before the enrolment of the Polish resettlement corps started, an official pamphlet was circulated among members of the Polish Navy. Among other things it stated that it was not possible yet for Polish sailors to join the Royal Navy, which at present admits only British citizens and those of British origin. On the other hand, the same document explained that Polish sailors can, if they wish, join the British Army. This, in the first place, seems a waste of trained personnel, while from the psychological point of view it certainly is a mistake. No sailor will ever join an Army, however glorious may be its traditions. In view of the exceptional situation, it is suggested that an Amendment should be introduced to Clause 8 of the Bill which would enable Polish sailors to join the British Navy.
I should be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me an answer to this question so that I may transmit it to my friends.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to say to the Financial Secretary that I am not in favour of bringing them in as privates. I would put them on the retired list and bring them in as retired officers. After all, when an officer retires. he receives retired pay. They should come into this Resettlement Corps not as a force of the Polish Army. That is all very well in connection with the situation as it is now, but I would honestly ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. By all means get them into the force and get them prepared for our industrial and civilian life. As hon. Members in the Committee know, I would prefer to see them all go back to Poland, but if that is not to be the case, I would like to see them all brought in and trained, particularly the officers. I would like to see them being trained in industrial and

domestic life. In no circumstances should the Minister retain that relationship between officer and men which existed in the Army. What we want is a new relationship between officers and men, for that is an essential part of training them to be absorbed into our industrial and civilian life.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): In answer to the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory), I will look into that point. The real reason why the Navy is not mentioned in this Clause is because this Clause relates to the Army Act and the Air Force Act and the Polish Resettlement Corps is really a transit camp into civilian life, or if suitable, into the Armed Forces of this country but not as a unit, only as individuals. In regard to what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, I am glad to hear his remarks about not wishing to demote these men. After all, many of these officers did good service and as long as they continue to observe the forms of democracy which we understand in this country and which we are teaching them—[Interruption.] Yes, the Committee will be surprised to learn that we are teaching them not only elementary English but the democratic forms of life, which they must have before they can be assimilated here, or before they can emigrate overseas. I ask the Committee not to be suspicious of the good intentions of His Majesty's Government in setting up this Polish Resettlement Corps as a method of rehabilitating these Poles, either in getting them back to Poland, which is what we desire, or to prepare them for some useful form of occupation in civilian life.

Professor Savory: The point simply is this: Cannot a Polish naval officer join the British Navy in the same way as a Polish army officer can join the British Army? I should like the Secretary of State for War to have a copy of these questions and I will hand them to him now.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's action is very irregular.

Professor Savory: I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to have the questions.

Mr. Tiffany: I understand that the main point of the Polish Resettlement-Corps is to rehabilitate these Polish soldiers and get them into the


civilian way of life. It seems to me rather peculiar that in order to do so, we should retain in this Resettlement Corps the military set-up that was in operation in the Polish military forces. I should have imagined in order to teach them the English way of life it would have been necessary for them in this force to live as closely to the English way of life as possible. I do not consider it demoting them by putting them into civilian life and I would think it would be better if this Resettlement Corps were brought into close contact with our experience of the way of life. I cannot accept fully the argument that has been put forward.

Brigadier Low: I ask the Government to reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory). All the legal luminaries of the Government are on the Front Bench. Surely one of them could answer. The question was a simple one—what legal difficulty stands in the way of a member of the Polish naval detachment joining the British Navy? Could we not have an answer to that?

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am always glad to satisfy the thirst for information which hon. Members opposite exhibit from time to time. In the Army and Air Force Annual Act, aliens may be permitted to join the Army under Section 95, which is referred to in this Clause. Under the existing Regulations they may not join the Navy.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Having regard to what the Attorney-General has just said, could we have the benefit of his advice in regard to the Polish Resettlement Corps? Under this Bill, the scheme is intended to apply for five years. If it is necessary to legalise the position in the future may we know what the present law is? Does it not follow that Section 95 of the Army and Air Force Act is invalidated at the present time? If so, is it proposed to take steps to make this Clause retrospective or is an indemnifying Bill going to be brought in?

The Attorney-General: His Majesty's present Law Officers have had regard to those difficulties, and have anticipated them by dealing with the matter under the Defence Regulations at present in operation.

Mr. Warbey: I think that it is entirely unnecessary to import into this Corps, which is intended to be a preparation for a civilian and democratic way of life, the entire military hierarchy which has been in operation in the Polish forces from the general commanding, right down to the second-lieutenant.

Mrs. Manning: Could the Attorney-General tell us whether this new Force will come under the Defence Regulations; and is it a fact that discipline can be enforced in those circumstances? If it is not a fact how can discipline be enforced, and what use can the present set-up be to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who wants it for that purpose?

The Attorney-General: I was dealing with another point. I was dealing with the question of the extent to which aliens might be admitted into the British Army, not the extent to which discipline can be exercised over a force which is not part of the British Army. The point my hon. Friend has in mind does not arise on this Clause.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Scotland.)

1.0 a.m.

The Joint Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) Subsections (8) and (9) of section three shall not apply.
I should. like to discuss both this and the next Amendment to page 10, line 33, together. The Bill proposes that the Assistance Board should give certain benefits and recover charges from the persons liable, but in Scotland the position as regards the recovery of charges differs somewhat from the English position, and does so in two respects. First there is in Scotland no procedure for obtaining maintenance orders; the person liable has to be sued in court like an ordinary debtor. Secondly, the persons liable to reimburse the Assistance Board differ in the two countries. In this first Amendment we propose to delete a provision that we in-


serted to cover the difficulty in Scotland, but we find that, in fact, it does not do more than is done in paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Bill. We think, therefore, that the position can safely be left under paragraph 5. As regards the second Amendment, we consider that, that since a limited class of people is being dealt with in the Bill under these provisions, a very limited number of people will be called upon to reimburse the Assistance Board. There is no necessity, as we have provided, to provide for recovery under two different sets of provisions, so we propose in the second Amendment to apply the English law to the whole of Great Britain.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 33, leave out paragraph (a), and insert:
(a) paragraph 3 shall have effect as if the Poor Law Act, 1930, extended to Scotland."—[Mr. Thomas Fraser.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 11, line 8, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, in the application of that Act by virtue of this subsection, there shall be substituted, for references in that Act to the appeal tribunal constituted thereunder, to the chairman thereof and to rules relating thereto, references to the appeal tribunal constituted under the Unemployment Assistance Act (Northern Ireland), 1934, to the chairman thereof and to rules relating thereto, respectively.
This is to enable a Pole who happens to be in Northern Ireland and applies for, and is granted, assistance from the Assistance Board and wishes to appeal against the decision, to have the appeal heard in Northern Ireland, and I am quite sure that the Committee would desire to give him that facility.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page it, line 9, after "in," to insert "sections four to seven of."
This is a drafting Amendment to cure a verbal defect in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Ede.

Mr. Bing: On a point of Order, Major Milner. May I ask for your Ruling as to whether or not the new Clause which is on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary—[Continuance of provisions as to discipline and internal administration of certain Polish forces]—is in Order. I do not wish to take long on the point, but if I am successful on it, it will perhaps result in our going home rather earlier than we would otherwise have done.
I think it is generally accepted, and it is my submission, that any Clause in a Bill must be within the general scope of the Bill, and that any Clause which is outside the purpose of the Bill cannot be introduced on the Committee stage. In 1907 in the case of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, which had been before the House of Commons in one form or another since 1856, so that the provisions were by then fairly familiar, it was held that a Clause dealing with the re-marriage of a divorced wife's sister, was out of Order. In those circumstances, my submission is that if a new Clause goes at all outside the general scope of the Bill, it is not permissible to introduce it on the Committee stage. This new Clause deals with a subject which is entirely foreign—

Brigadier Low: What Clause? It has not been moved.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has raised a point of Order on it.

Brigadier Low: It is not before the Committee.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member will forgive me, but I called upon the Home Secretary to move the new Clause, and it seems to me that it is in Order to raise a point of Order at this stage.

Mr. Bing: The proposed new Clause standing on the Order Paper deals with a subject which is entirely different from the main object of the Bill. Hitherto the purpose of the Bill has been to deal with aliens who owe allegiance to the Crown and with aliens for whom some Minister has some responsibility. What is now proposed, as a kind of "side kick" at the last moment, as far as I can see, is to repeal, in part,


at any rate, the Bill of Rights, and to propose a provision which is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Army Act. It is of course within the competence of Parliament to do such things, but if it is desired to raise such matters, they should, at least, be announced on the Second Reading of the Bill and not at this late stage. Perhaps I might ask for your ruling, Major Milner, whether you consider this new Clause in Order.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of Order—

The Chairman: The Home Secretary has not formally moved the new Clause, and it is not before the Committee, Perhaps he will formally move it, and I can deal with the point of Order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Continuance of provisions as to discipline and internal administration of certain Polish forces.)

(1) In matters concerning the discipline and internal administration of the Polish naval detachment mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act, and of the Polish forces organised and employed under British command mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof, subsection (1) of section one of the Allied Forces Act, 1940 (which provides that all such powers as are conferred by the law of a foreign Power allied with His Majesty on naval, military and air force courts and authorities of that Power may be exercised in the United Kingdom in relation to members of forces of that power for the time being present therein), shall apply, and shall be deemed to have continued to apply after the said detachment and forces ceased to be recognised by the Government of Poland, as if the said detachment and forces had not ceased to be so recognised.
(2) Any Order in Council made in relation to the said naval detachment or forces under the said Act, or under the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, as applied for purposes of the said Act of 1940, shall also apply, subject to the powers of variation and revocation conferred by section four of the said Act of 1940, and shall be deemed to have continued to apply, as mentioned in the preceding subsection.
(3) For the purposes of the application as aforesaid of subsection (1) of section one of the said Act of 1940, and of the said Orders, the courts and authorities entitled to exercise powers in the matters aforesaid by virtue of that subsection, the powers exercisable therein by them and all other relevant matters shall be deemed to have been, and shall be, determinable by reference to the law of Poland in force immediately before the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-five.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this section the powers exer- 
cisable by virtue thereof shall not include power to impose the punishment of death on any person; and no person shall be imprisoned, or shall be detained for any period longer than three months, pursuant to any sentence of imprisonment or detention awarded in exercise of the said powers except with the consent of the General or Air Officer commanding the Command in which the sentence was passed.— [Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. Paget: Further to the point of Order of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), in my submission, this Clause is not only extraneous to the purpose of the Bill, but is extraneous to the purpose of any Bill which has ever been before this House. The conception of a crime as known by law is an offence against an authority. That is the distinction between a crime and a mere offence like slander, which is an offence against an individual. Here we are dealing with and creating crimes when we have no sovereign authority which is being offended against. The second difficulty which arises from that matter is this: Where there is a crime, the trial is between parties, and where we have a criminal trial it is a trial between the sovereign authority—in this country the King—on the one hand, and the accused on the other. Here you are creating trials without a party. Lastly, there is this point that every crime, being an offence against a sovereign authority—

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will get to his point of Order. He cannot indulge in these discussions.

Mr. Paget: My point of Order, with respect, Major Milner, is to show that the purposes of this Clause are right outside the purposes of the Bill, and I do that by showing how the purposes arise. Since a crime is an offence against sovereign authority it is inherent in crime that the sovereign authority is in a position to forgive. The prerogative of mercy is inherent in a crime. Here, for the first time in our legal history, quite apart from the purposes of this Bill, we are creating an offence which is not subject to any prerogative of mercy.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, but that is quite outside the point. The simple question is


that put by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), that this new Clause is outside the scope of the Bill. I have considered that question. I have also considered the precedent which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I am satisfied that the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill. The analogy drawn was not an accurate one, because the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill and the other Bill mentioned, both covered a very narrow point. This Bill covers a wide range, and the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill, even if it is not within the Title of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to deal with this last point in the last Amendment on the Order Paper. In my view, therefore, the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Pritt: With respect, Major Milner, you are giving your Ruling before you have heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He was developing his argument, I thought, clearly and very shortly. Certainly he had not finished developing a further argument to show that this new Clause could not be within the scope of the Bill. He was showing the very extraordinary nature and the quite unprecedented character of the Bill. Surely it is impossible for the Chairman to rule that something is within the Bill, until the argument has been heard showing exactly what it is that might prove it to be without the Bill. I humbly submit, Major Milner, that you should hear the argument on that before expressing an opinion.

The Chairman: It the hon. Member tot Northampton (Mr. Paget) wishes to develop any further relevant argument I am quite willing to hear him. But if he will forgive my saying so, the argument which both he and the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) have advanced, that this, subject matter is unprecedented, does not affect the question at all. Many things are done in this House which have not been done before. The simple question is whether the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill. I have considered that, and I had the advantage of a written communication from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who was good enough to let me have it in good time, and I must ask the Committee to accept my Ruling.

Mr. Pritt: Although you have received an argument from the hon. Member for

Hornchurch, Major Milner, and have considered it, there was going forward when you interrupted him, an equally good and an equally cogent argument by the hon. Member for Northampton. It is true that he said it was unprecedented, but some of us say things which are not the whole argument. That he was going on to say other things was quite clear. It is for you to say, Major Milner, whether those arguments are good or bad, but I respectfully submit that you should not say they are bad, until you have heard them.

1.15 a.m.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has made an observation which is ill-founded. He has put forward, as did the hon. Member for Ndrthampton (Mr. Paget) the argument that the new Clause was unprecedented. This was no ground whatever for ruling the new Clause out of Order, but if the hon. Member for Northampton has any fresh argument, I will hear it.

Mr. Paget: This is not a Bill to alter the Constitution of this country. The added Clause fundamentally alters the Constitution of this country, by introducing a new conception of crime, a new conception of trial, and by introducing an offence which is not to be subject to the prerogative of mercy. That prerogative was a subject considered in detail by this House during the Stuart period. But we are doing here, just by a whim during a Committee stage, the very thing which, after tremendous constitutional Debates, this House decided it had no power to do in the Stuart period.

Mr. Mikardo: I am not an authority on the Rules of Order, and I cannot speak, therefore, with the authority of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken previously. But, with respect, it would seem improper to introduce on the Committee stage of a Bill a new Clause, the terms of which have been held, by precedent, on previous occasions to be casus belli. I am quite sure that such a serious step as introducing a casus belli into a Bill ought not to he taken on a Committee stage. The proposals set out in this Clause seek to recognise the laws of another country which existed before a certain date in the past. That is precisely the procedure which was carried out by the court of the French kings in


the first half of the eighteenth century, when they recognised, in so far as it concerned the king, the laws of Great Britain only so far as these laws were passed before 1689.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not speaking on a matter of relevancy—he is speaking on the merits. May I sug gest that the Home Secretary should make a statement on the point of Order?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order

The Chairman: I have asked the Home Secretary to speak.

Mr. Ede: I did make the promise al an earlier stage that, when we came to this Clause, I would make a statement. May I first refer to the question on which you, Major Milner, have ruled, namely, whether the Clause is within the scope of the Bill As has been said, this is an unprecedented situation, and in view of the misgivings which have been expressed, it was not my intention to proceed with the new Clause at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. James Stuart: Then why move it?

Mr. Ede: Unless I moved it, I could not make a statement on it. I should have thought that even a Tory Chief Whip would have known that. Perhaps I may be allowed to read to the House the form of words that I prefer, and which I intended to move on the Report stage, so that between now and then I can discuss the matter with all those who are concerned about this unprecedented situation. It is an unprecedented situation to bring into the British Army a unit of this composition, and at the same time to preserve the civil liberties of all persons within the Realm, whether they are in the Army or not. I desire to put these words on record before asking leave to withdraw the Motion. I think that they are a better form of words to secure the object we have in view, the ability to maintain discipline inside an organisation of Poles who have not agreed to come into the Resettlement Corps. The proposed new words are:
(1) The Polish forces mentioned in paragraphs (a) and(b) of Subsecion (1) of Section one of this Act shall be under the command of a person of British nationality appointed by the Secretary of State, being a person appearing to him to have a good know-

ledge, and to be experienced in the administration, of British military law.
(2) It shall be lawful for the person for the time being having command as aforesaid of the said forces to exercise within the United Kingdom, as regards matters concerning discipline and internal administration, in relation to those forces all such powers as were conferred by the law of Poland in force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-five, on military, air force and naval courts and authorities, and to delegate either generally or in particular cases, to authorities, commanders or other officers of those forces such of the powers exercisable by him by virtue of this Subsection as may appear to him to be requisite to be so delegated for securing the maintenance of discipline and efficiency of administration:
Provided that the powers exercisable "—

Mr. Bowles: Does this really arise on the point of Order?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman was reading the new words which he proposes to move on the Report stage, before asking leave to withdraw his Motion. Is it the wish of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should, if he is willing, discuss his new proposal at some later stage in the Bill?

Mr. Driberg: Further to the point of Order. With great respect, Major Milner, at the beginning of the Home Secretary's speech I understood you to say that you were appealing to him to speak to the point of Order, to indicate why the new Clause on the Order Paper was in Order. It seemed to me that his departure from that point has rather altered the circumstances.

The Chairman: That was so But because I thought it was for the general convenience of the Committee, and in view of the turn which matters had taken—of which I had no previous notice—I permitted the Home Secretary to explain what he was proposing to do, by proceeding with his statement. This seemed to me to offer a way out of the difficulty.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I am certain, Major Milner, that you put to the House the Question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. I called "Aye," and I do not know how many other hon. Members did the same. Once you put Clause 12, the Committee stage of the Bill is finished, and I do not consider that any new Clause now is within the scope of the Bill. Am I to understand that after you have finished the Bill it is possible to take other Clauses?

The Chairman: The hon. Member must forgive me, but it is not only permissible but, indeed, the correct procedure, after the Clauses of a Bill have been dealt with, to consider new Clauses and the Schedules The hon. Member is quite in error.

Mr. Stokes: Can we go on with them when they are out of Order?

The Chairman: I suggest that the Home Secretary be permitted to finish his statement.

Mr. Stokes: He is out of Order.

Mr. Ede: With great respect, Major Milner, I should perhaps point out that I did in fact give notice to your Deputy who was in the Chair at an earlier stage of the proceedings that I was intending to adopt the course which I have followed. I am only anxious to get this Clause into print so that I can discuss it with hon. Members who may desire to do so. I was reading a proviso and, if I may, I will resume where I left off. It continues:
Provided that the powers exercisable by virtue of this subsection shall not include power to impose the punishment of death on any person, and no person shall be imprisoned, or shall be held in detention for any period longer than three months, pursuant to any sentence of imprisonment or detention awarded in exercise of any of the said powers which may have been delegated as aforesaid except with the consent of the person for the time being having command as aforesaid.
(3)His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the application to any of the said forces, subject to such adaptations, modifications and exceptions as may be provided by the Order, of subsections (2) to (4) of section one, section two and subsections (2) and (4) of section three of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, as amended by or under any enactments whether passed before or after this Act.
Any Order in Council made under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
(4)Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of any civil court of the United Kingdom to try a member of any of the said forces for any act or omission constituting an offence against the law of the United Kingdom:
Provided that—
(a) if a person sentenced by an authority or person exercising jurisdiction by virtue of this section to punishment for an offence is afterwards tried by any civil court of the United Kingdom in respect of any act or omission which constitutes an offence, the civil court shall, in awarding punishment in respect of that act or omission, have regard to any punishment imposed on him by the said sentence; and

(b) no authority or person shall have jurisdiction by virtue of this section to try any person for any act or omission constituting an offence for which he has been acquitted or convicted by any civil court in the United Kingdom.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Law: If I may say so with great respect, the Home Secretary has achieved a remarkable treble. He has confused the Committee, as far as I can understand it, he has confused you, Major Milner, and he has completely confused himself.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. What is before the Committee? Could you, Major Milner, make it quite clear?

The Chairman: I understand that the point of Order has been dropped. The Home Secretary has formally moved the Second Reading of the new Clause and he later proposes to withdraw it. I would say this to the Home Secretary with all respect, that it would have been more convenient if he had, in the first instance, not moved the new Clause standing in his name but contented himself by handing in his revised version to the Table, when it could have been printed on the Order Paper tomorrow morning.

Mr. Stokes: What is the Motion, now?

The Chairman: The Motion is that the new Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Law: On a point of Order. Surely the position is quite a simple one. The Home Secretary made a statement to the Committee, and I was commenting on that statement. I hope I shall be allowed to continue my comments.

The Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not do so at length, having regard to the statement that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was going to make.

Mr. Stokes: We did not hear it down here.

The Chairman: I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will now put in a revised version to be printed on the Order Paper, and later there will be an opportunity for a Debate on it.

Mr. Law: I quite agree it would be impossible to debate the merits of that rigmarole which the Home Secretary read


out, because nobody could possibly understand those comments of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. Will you, Major Milner, make it clear to those of us below the Gangway what is the Motion before the Committee?

The Chairman: The Motion before the Committee is "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. Stokes: But, Major Milner, you have ruled the new Clause out of Order.

The Chairman: On the contrary, I distinctly ruled in reply to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that it was in Order and that is precisely what is before the Committee.

Mr. Stokes: The Home Secretary has withdrawn the Clause and has tried to insert a new one which nobody has heard.

The Chairman: On the contrary, it has not yet been withdrawn, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) was speaking on the Motion, "That the Clause be read a Second time"

Mr. Gallacher: How can we discuss whether this Clause should get a Second Reading when we have not yet decided that the original Clause should be withdrawn? You, Major Milner, have told us that the Home Secretaary has asked permission to withdraw it.

The Chairman: I think hon. Members can leave that to me. What we are discussing at the moment is the Motion, "That the Clause be read a Second time." I understand that, at some appropriate stage, later on, the Home Secretary will ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Ronald Mackay (Hull, North-West): May I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again? Such a Motion, if accepted, will give the Government time to consider this whole matter.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I can not accept that Motion.

Mr. Warbey: Major Milner, you just said that you had heard the point of Order and had ruled that the new Clause is not out

side the scope of the Bill. I understood that that was the point raised by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) Having given that Ruling you did, I understand, go on to hear further pleas from a different point of view regarding this Clause. There was a second point of Order raised by the hon Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the new Clause was ultra vires on the Committee stage, in view of the fact that it involved a new precedent in constitutional law. I understood you had not vet given your Ruling on that point.

The Chairman: I thought that I had given it.. I will give it now. In my view, the new Clause does come within the scope of the Bill, and I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)

Mr. Stokes: May we hear what the position is? As I understand, the Home Secretary has withdrawn the Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He said so. If he has withdrawn it, how can there be a point of Order on the new Clause?

The Chairman: He did not withdraw it.

Mr. Stokes: What is the position now?. Is the new Clause not withdrawn?

The Chairman: I have already told hon Members what is the position. I will go over it once again. The Home Secretary moved at my request the Second Reading of the new Clause on the Paper. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised a point of Order and that point of Order I disposed of. The Motion for the Second Reading of the new Clause is still before the Committee. At a later stage, the Home Secretary proposes to withdraw the new Clause, but hon. Members are at present entitled to discuss it.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of Order. Surely the position is that you, Major Milner, were considering further arguments from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) as to whether or not the proposed new Clause was within the scope of the Bill. Then at your suggestion, the Home Secretary spoke on that point of Order, and indicated a certain course that he would be prepared to take, which was inaudible down here. During that discussion, hon. Members sitting here, were


waiting to hear what was going to be proposed by the Home Secretary in order to have an opportunity of advancing further arguments before you gave any Ruling on whether the proposed new Clause which was going to be moved, was or was not within the scope of the Bill. May I respectfully submit that it is in the interests of all that we should have some clarity in the Committee stage of these proceedings. There is a matter of constitutional importance involved in this, because this House gave a Second Reading to this Bill in a certain form. On the Committee stage, we find on the Order Paper a proposed new Clause which we now under stand is not to be moved.

Mr. Law: It has been moved.

Mr. Fletcher: It has either not been moved, or it has been moved and withdrawn.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Fletcher: It is going to be moved again. It does seem that there is a very important question of principle involved in this. The House gave a Second Reading to this Bill after a full day's Debate, and it is quite obvious from arguments advanced during the last few minutes that several hon. Members who supported it in its original form would not have done so if, at the outset, it had contained this proposed new Clause.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must forgive me, but the matter on which he is speaking is in no way connected with the proposed new Clause, which the Home Secretary is to put on some future Order Paper. The House on the Report stage presumably—

Mr. Stokes: Which Clause?

The Chairman: The Clause which will be proposed when the present new Clause is withdrawn, and which will be put on the Order Paper for future discussion on the Report stage. I do not express any opinion on that proposed new Clause—it is not at the moment before the House. It will come before Mr. Speaker, presumably on the Report stage, and it will be for him to decide whether that new Clause, when it is put on the Order Paper and comes up on the Report stage, is in Order or not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I must ask hon. Members to restrain their exuberance. The matter is perfectly clear. It is not proposed, I understand, to proceed with the new Clause at present on the Order Paper. The matter is perfectly open for the House to decide upon any future new Clause that the Home Secretary may put down, and is in no way prejudiced.

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point, may I ask whether any hon. Member of this Committee will now be in Order in discussing the proposed hew Clause which was not on the Order Paper and which nobody except a few privileged people above the Gangway has heard?

The Chairman: They will not be in Order. I myself have not a copy of it, nor has it been put on the Table, and hence it cannot be discussed.

Mr. Law: Perhaps. I may now address myself to the Motion which I understand the Home Secretary has moved namely—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order—

The Chairman: No, I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat. The hon. Member has raised a number of quite false points of Order, and I must ask him to resume his seat. We must make progress. I am the servant of the Committee, and the Committee must make progress.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gallacher: But, Major Milner, on a point of Order. This new Clause has been put down for Second Reading. The Second Reading must be before the House, and cannot be discussed in Committee. That is a fact.

The Chairman: Mr. Law.

Mr. Law: I will now try once again to address myself to the new Clause which is on the Paper, and to the speech which the Home Secretary made in moving that this Clause on the Paper be now read a Second time. The only argument that he produced relevant to this Clause which he put on the Paper was that it was an extremely bad Clause and that he proposed to withdraw it. But I would like to offer the Home Secretary these reflections on his proceedings here this evening. About one and a half hours ago—

Mr. Stokes: Is that in Order on this new Clause?

Mr. Law: —I moved to report Progress, and the Home Secretary refused to accept the Motion on the ground that when we came to this new Clause he would make a statement so clear that it would solve all our troubles—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks do not seem relevant to the Question whether the new Clause on the Order Paper should be read a Second time or not. That is the matter before the Committee.

Mr. Ede: I regret very much, Major Milner, that the Committee should have been put to any inconvenience through the course which I followed, and I sincerely apologise to all hon. Members on both sides for any inconvenience that has been so caused. I ask them to believe that I did it with the intention of trying to help the progress of the Bill, and to facilitate the progress of this business. But, like many other good intentions of

myself and other people, that miscarried. I therefore beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the new Clause on the Order Paper.

The Chairman: The Committee are glad to have that expression of regret, and will no doubt accept it in the spirit in which it has been offered. Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the new Clause be withdrawn?

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes to Two o'Clock.